


Class _ ! 

Book 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 
















* 








































■ . 


































































































































































The Church Order Commentary 

















The 

CHURCH ORDER 
COMMENTARY 


BEING 

A Brief Explanation of the Church Order 
of the Christian Reformed Church 


By 

IDZERD VAN DELLEN, Minister 
First Chr. Ref. Church, Denver, Colo. 

AND 

MARTIN MONSMA, Minister 
Second Chr. Ref. Church, Pella, la. 


ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE 

MICHIGAN 


GRAND RAPIDS 


COPYRIGHT, MCMXLI, BY 
ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE 



“Quoted from the American Standard 
Edition of the Revised Bible by permission 
of its copyright owner , The International 
Council of Religious Education ” 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



EIGHT-FIFTEEN FRANKLIN STREET 
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 


RECEIVED 


MAR 2 1 1941 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE 


Introduction 


The esteemed authors of this Commentary on the Church Order of 
the Christian Reformed Church have asked me to introduce their book 
to its readers by way of a foreword. In complying with their request 
I need not pause to acquaint you with the Church Order which they 
felt impelled to explain. The instrument is well known and its provi- 
sions are familiar to all the office-bearers and to many members of 
the church that operates under it. 

It may not be superfluous, however, to observe that the document, 
familiar though its text may be, is not above the need of interpreta- 
tion. Mere reading of the Church Order leaves that impression with- 
out fail; while its study is well calculated to raise the question: un- 
derstandest thou what thou readest ? And to say no more, the execu- 
tion of its several provisions on the part of the officers of the church, 
particularly on the part of those whose duty it is to administer the 
affairs of the church in its graduated series of assemblies, does not 
fail to bring home to them the need of a competent commentator. 
The extreme brevity of the Church Order and its predominantly ar- 
chaic editorial cast are not unrelated to this situation. 

The authors of the present volume must have prepared it under a 
sense of constraint. Each of them is crowded with pastoral labors as 
the regular Minister of a church. Moreover, both are engaged in 
journalistic activities. The book which they produced collaboratively 
is conclusive evidence that they took a far from inconsiderable bur- 
den upon themselves when they undertook to write it. True, they 
leaned heavily upon certain Dutch canonists whom they accordingly 
give due credit for aid rendered. But even so, their own labors as 
embodied in the sizeable book before you constitutes ample proof of 
a fine measure of industry, perseverance and devotion. 

I have not been so informed by the respected authors of this Com- 
mentary, but I feel wholly confident nevertheless that they would 
have all their readers constantly bear in mind at least two pertinent 
facts as they turn to this volume for light. The first is that this is 
not an official, that is, synodically approved, commentary on the 
Church Order. It carries no more weight than the intrinsic correct- 
ness of the positions taken in the book will bear. And the second is 
that not all the views propounded by the authors command the as- 
sent of all who are able to judge of matters canonical. 

A rather careful reading of this comparatively lengthy Commentary 
has convinced me that it will prove to be a very useful manual indeed, 
and that it will not fail to meet with the generous appreciation that 
it deserves. I cherish the desire that this Commentary may have a 
wide sale and that it may be consulted diligently and studied critically 
in the interest of soundly Reformed canonical theory and practice in 
the church which the authors dearly love and devotedly serve. 

Grand Rapids, Mich. , 

S. VOLBEDA. 


v 


i’Oi' f f :;?] 






. •:<iw •:■>) ’ :• . . 

‘T ’ < • i 

■ : ii: ■ f, • 

: i » : H 9 i 

■ . . • : . 

) T< ■ r '.!••• w ■;/ • - . v . I 

. “ - ■ 4 

i 1 '• ... 

. ■ ■' : 








• n* ’ , . . I 

"■ ' ' 1 h' '•r , *u . ■ ' /•' ■ :J i ■ - /;■: \v. ■ • • 


> ;■ ■ i • 1 ' - ■ vi.-y's] 


• ■» i 1 . . . ■ tr, > j : . ■ •' . • 

i\ Ai ■«.( Wvr !kU v.\ w ■ •>>-;} . ■ • • 

• ' t : 

t 

■/'tr. 1 , , \ A *=.: * ■ i;;'J •.»:?. ■„ ; .. • , J. 

, 1 foil :m . •*» '• « • I i;\{i 

■> 1 i f . ■ ■ ■. . i ! ■ .. ft* ■ . ■ • , 

. 

i 

if ■ v‘/f iq ■■ :>ci . ‘ i •• . : ■ . t \y : 

> "'i"" ^ . ‘b . ' 1 ■ i; : 




MO- 










Preface 


In the following pages the authors have endeavored to give a brief 
exposition of the Church Order of Dort (1618-19) as amended by the 
Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in the year 1914. 

For the benefit of the uninformed it may be said that the Christian 
Reformed Church dates back to the year 1857. Some years previous, 
(1847), a new migration movement from the shores of the Netherlands 
to the United States began. Those who left the homeland in large 
numbers and colonized especially in the regions of present-day Hol- 
land, Michigan, and Pella, Iowa, were of Calvinistic stock theologically. 

Ecclesiastically they were, in the main, members of the Secession 
Church of Holland; (Christelijke Afgescheiden Kerk). This Secession 
Church of Holland, dating back to 1834, was an off-shoot of the Es- 
tablished or State Church of Holland (Hervormde Kerk) which had 
become corrupt in doctrine and had set aside the historic form of gov- 
ernment as last ratified by the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19. 

As the re-organized and purified Churches of Holland had done in 
1834, so the Christian Reformed Churches in 1857 restored the vener- 
able Church Order of Dort as their rule and guide in matters of 
church government. In these church governmental rules of order, the 
founders of the Christian Reformed denomination found what they 
believed to be the correct Biblical system of government for the 
Church of Christ on earth. In the Church Order of Dort, these 
Churches found a faithful reflection of church governmental principles 
as developed in Reformation days under the influence of John Calvin 
and other leading Bible students and Reformers. 

But circumstances had changed considerably since Reformation and 
post- Reformation days. The fundamental, basic principles of Re- 
formed Church polity are drawn directly from Holy Writ. Even as 
the Bible is ever the unchanging Word of God for all times and lands, 
thus also — so the re-organized and purified Churches of the former 
century held — the basic principles for church government drawn from 
the Bible are the same for all times and all lands. But the applica- 
tion of these basic principles will vary as times and conditions vary. 
New conditions demand new approaches and adjustments. 

The Secession Churches of Holland (1834) were greatly enriched 
and strengthened by a second exodus from the corrupt State Church 
toward the close of the former century (1886). This second secession 
movement was largely under the leadership of the great Dr. Abraham 
Kuyper. The Churches joining this secession were known as “de 
Doleerende Kerken” (Latin, “doleo,” to be hurt; to be aggrieved). 
These “Doleerende Kerken” and the Secession Churches of 1834 
united in 1892 and adopted the name, the Reformed Churches of the 
Netherlands (de Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland). Now these 
united Churches in the year 1905 revised several articles of the Church 
Order and brought this treasured set of rules up-to-date. And the 
Christian Reformed Churches here in the United States of America, 
did the same in 1914 (Synod of 1914, Roseland, Chicago, Illinois). It 


vii 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


is this Church Order of Dort, 1618-19, as amended in 1914, which we 
are seeking to explain in the present volume. 

The name “Church Order” is of Dutch origin; it being a rendition 
of the expression, “Kerkenordening.” The first regular Synod of the 
Reformed Churches of Holland was held in Emden, Germany, in 1571. 
Persecution and hostility made a gathering in the homeland inadvis- 
able. Since the year 1571, Synod met at regular intervals. By 1581 
the fundamental principles of church government had found expres- 
sion and application in various synodical pronouncements. The Synod 
of Middelburg, 1581, gathered these into one document and called it 
in Latin, “Corpus Disciplinae,” and in Dutch, “Kerckenordeninghe.” 
The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, called the document, “The Church 
Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands” (Kerckenorden- 
inghe der Nederlandtsche Gereformeerde Kercken). This, altho in 
simplified modem spelling, is still the official name of this body of 
church rules today. (Kerkenordening van de Gereformeerde Kerken 
in Nederland). 

Note the plural “Kerken” in the name of this Church Order. This 
name, as just indicated, dates back to the post-Reformation era. This 
plural form of the word Church in this title, is therefore not the in- 
vention of the Doleantie leaders, Kuyper, Rutgers, and others, as 
some have thought; but it is found in the original name, altho the 
name was not used in toto for more than two and one-half centuries. 

Realizing the foregoing may also help us to understand that the 
word “church” in “Church Order” is an adjective. It merely tells us 
that the document is an ecclesiastical order; not a political or a social 
order, for instance. That is, it is not a set of rules for a political 
organization nor for a social organization. The singular “church” in 
the name “Church Order” therefore does not indicate that we look 
upon our denomination as one large super-Church. The full name of 
our Church Order in its original languages, Latin and Dutch, clearly 
indicates that our denomination is a federation of local Churches hold- 
ing a common confession and form of church government, firmly 
united by the confessional standards and Church Order adopted. The 
Christian Reformed Church is therefore not a body or union of indi- 
viduals, but a union or federation of Churches, each one of which is 
a complete manifestation of the body of Christ. It may be said in 
this connection that if the Synod of 1914 had adopted the title “Church 
Order of the Christian Reformed Churches” in harmony with the his- 
toric name of our Church Order, this would have helped to ward off 
misunderstanding on this score. 

One of the characteristics of our Church Order is its brevity. There 
are only 86 articles and these are in most instances very brief. Our 
fathers purposely steered in the direction of brevity. They believed 
that the best interests of the Churches and the cause of God would 
be served by a limited number of rules. They feared “rule upon rule 
and precept upon precept.” They felt that multiple and detailed rules 
would bind the Churches needlessly. They loved their liberties, and 
believed that each Church group (Classis) or Church should retain as 
much of its inherent freedom as the true welfare of the Church of 
Christ would warrant. In this respect a different course has been 
pursued by many Reformed and Presbyterian Churches which have a 
large number of rules and regulations, going into great detail. 

We are convinced that the brevity of our Church Order is one of 
its merits. More than once, for instance, numberless detailed and in- 
volved rules have been used by modernistic majorities at church as- 


PREFACE 


ix 


semblies, against loyal minorities. Rules needlessly detailed always 
have a tendency to impede and hinder free action and development. 

As to its nature, the Church order is a body of rules for the mainte- 
nance of good order in the Churches. As such the Church Order should 
not be confused with synodical or with classical decisions. The Church 
Order and ecclesiastical decisions by no means stand on par. A Church 
Order is a group of ecclesiastical rules, mutually adopted, and bind- 
ing for all the Churches having so adopted these rules, i.e., for all 
the Churches of the denomination concerned; whereas ecclesiastical 
decisions are merely distinct applications of one or more of the gen- 
eral and basic rules of the Church Order. 

The authority of the Church Order is based upon the Biblical de- 
mand of subjection to duly appointed authorities. Children are in- 
structed to obey their parents. (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20.) Romans 13 defi- 
nitely enjoins obedience to lawful state authorities. Thus Holy Writ 
likewise attributes authority to office-bearers in the Church. “Jesus 
therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you; as the Father hath 
sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed 
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose soever 
sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whose soever sins ye re- 
tain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23.) Acts 15:27-29 also very 
clearly reflects ecclesiastical authority, for we read in this passage: 
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no 
greater burden than these necessary things.” Judas and Silas are 
delegated to convey the decision of the Jerusalem Assembly by letter 
and word of mouth to the various Churches. Furthermore, Heb. 13:17 
bids us, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: 
for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; 
that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were un- 
profitable for you.” 

Ecclesiastical authority as exercised by the Churches, however, 
does not bind the conscience as is claimed by the Roman Church and 
by some of the Protestant Churches. The Word of God, however, does 
bind the conscience. And whenever the Church clearly reflects the 
Word of God, the decisions of the Church should also bind the con- 
science. But whether or not ecclesiastical rules repeat and apply the 
clear dictates of God’s Word — judgment on this question must, in the 
last analysis, be left to every individual believer. Rules and decisions 
are binding and compelling only for those that are and remain under 
the authority of the Church. He who feels in conscience bound before 
God to refuse submission is free to do so. But such a believer cannot 
consistently remain under the authority of the Churches in question. 
That would make for disorder and confusion as well as for spiritual 
damage. 

That church government is of very great import to the Church of 
Christ goes without saying. True, purity in doctrine, and therefore 
confessional purity, ranks first. But no Church being pure and true 
confessionally, will continue to be such except the Word of God is 
purely preached, and the sacraments are administered according to 
the Word of God. A Church that is not governed according to the 
Word of God cannot remain true to the Word of God. Impurity in 
church government fosters impurity in church doctrine. Form and 
content stand closely related also in this instant. 

From what precedes it follows that the Church Order should not 
be considered to be a legalistic document, a book of laws in the civil 
sense. The Church Order consists of rules and regulations mutually 
agreed upon, and that by common consent, (cf. Art. 86.) It does not 


X 


PREFACE 


force and compel after the fashion of a civil law. It is not superim- 
posed upon the Churches, demanding unreasoned and legalistic obedi- 
ence. The Church Order guides and directs, in order that all things 
may be done “decently and in order,” for the furtherance of the 
Church of Christ, even as the Bible enjoins. (I Cor. 14:40.) However, 
as will appear from the pages following, the authors firmly believe 
that every one of our Churches and every member of our Churches is 
in duty bound to respect the authority of the Church Order, and to 
show constant loyalty to its provisions. 

As might be expected, we have sought to base the contents of this 
book exclusively on Scriptural principles and historic facts. 

Special mention should be made in this preface of the fact that the 
authors owe much to the church governmental labors of Dr. F. L. 
Rutgers, (1836-1917) one time professor in church polity at the Free 
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Not only have they often 
consulted the published works of this authority, but the unpublished 
class lectures on church government of Dr. Rutgers were also in their 
possession. We would also gratefully acknowledge the work of Rev. 
Joh. Jansen, a student of Dr. Rutgers, whose “Korte Verklaring van 
.de Kerkenordening” has been of great help to us in the preparation 
of this Commentary. 

May the King of His Church abundantly bless our labors! 

THE AUTHORS. 


The Church Order Commentary 



The CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 



ARTICLE I 

For the maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ 
it is necessary that there should be: offices, assemblies , super- 
vision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, and Christian 
discipline ; of which matters the following articles treat in due 
order. 

PURPOSE AND MAIN CONTENT OP CHURCH ORDER 
1. Concerning the purpose of the Church Order. 

No Christian can observe and study life and the world in which we 
live without seeing that God loves order. The seasons of the year, 
our own bodies, and all things created tell us, in spite of the mars 
and scars of sin, that the great Creator of all things is a God of order. 
The Bible, God’s special revelation, tells us the same thing emphat- 
ically. 

Now God is ever true to Himself. Sublime harmony and order mark 
His triune being. Consequently God can do nothing in a haphazard, 
slipshod fashion. That would militate against His very essence. That 
would be ruinous in its effect upon His creation. 

For these reasons the Church at Corinth is also admonished: “But 
let all things be done decently and in order.” (I Cor. 14:40.) And it 
is for the maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ, and for 
the promotion of its true welfare, that “offices, assemblies, supervision 
of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, and Christian discipline,” have 
been instituted. For these same reasons our fathers of Reformation 
days accepted a limited set of rules regulating these several matters. 
These rules comprise our Church Order. 

By maintaining well organized Churches with their, “offices, assem- 
blies, etc.” we vary definitely from certain mystical, inner-light groups 
who neglect all these important matters and even stand opposed to 
them. Our fathers definitely disagreed with the Anabaptists of the 
sixteenth centur^ on this score, and felt persuaded by Holy Writ to 
sponsor well organized Churches. 

At the same time it should be remembered that it is not the purpose 
of the Church Order to force the Churches to walk its beaten path 
with arbitrary, fettering and chafing compulsion. The Church Order 
means to be regulatory. It means to regulate ecclesiastical life rea- 
sonably and with full maintenance of the rights of every congregation 
and of the individual members of the Churches. The Church Order 
is moral in character, not judicial. It is a regulatory set of rules, 
not a legalistic set of laws. 

Regarding the expression “Church of Christ” in Article 1, it should 
be remarked that the Church Order sometimes speaks of “Church” in 
the singular (Kerk). Now the word “Church” in the Church Order 
always refers to a local congregation viewed as a definite organization. 
The plural, “Churches”, (Kerken) refers to a number of organized 
congregations. Usually it refers to all the Churches belonging to the 
denomination. The expression “Church of Christ”, (Gemeente van 
Christus) is used to indicate the body of believers living in a certain 
region or country. It designates the body of Christ from its non-or- 

13 


14 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ganizational aspect, and as scattered in various localities. And finally, 
the name “congregation” (de gemeente) is used to designate a definite 
group of believers living in one communion and organized into one 
particular church, altho the term “congregation” in the Church Order 
also refers to the Church from its non-organizational aspect. 1 Con- 
cisely the matter stands thus as to Church Order usage: 

Kerk — Church — Organized or instituted Church. 

Kerken — Churches — Denomination, or, Federation of organized 
Churches. 

Gemeente van Christus — Church of Christ — Sum-total of believers 
living in various localities. 

De gemeente — the congregation — definite group of believers liv- 
ing in one locality. 

It is evident therefore that Article 1 thinks of the believers as 
found in various localities when it speaks of the Church of Christ, 
and more specifically of the believers belonging to our Christian Re- 
formed denomination. 

The Church Order considered from the aspect of its purpose may 
be said to fill a real necessity. To be sure a Church can exist without 
a Church Order but it cannot flourish and thrive properly without it. 
Furthermore, denominational harmony and co-operation require a 
definite set of rules, inasmuch as all co-operation requires an expressed 
basis. Besides, the Church Order is a constant guardian against wil- 
fulness and abuse of power, which evils are ever ready to creep in 
to disturb the peace and progress of the Church. 

2. Concerning the main content of the Church Order. 

Article 1 declares that for the maintenance of good order in the 
Church of Christ it is necessary that there should be: offices; assem- 
blies; supervision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies; and Chris- 
tian discipline. The things here enumerated constitute the subject 
matter of the Church Order. Every article of the Church Order deals 
with matters which may be listed under one of the four heads indi- 
cated. 

Concerning the first head, the offices, (Articles 2-28) it is note- 
worthy that the Dutch text speaks of “diensten”, which as the Latin 
“functiones” in the original text, stresses the element of service to 
be rendered, rather than authority to be exercised. The word “minis- 
trations” or “services” would be more exact translations for “dien- 
sten” than the present “offices.” But there are objections to the sug- 
gested word also. “Ministrations” is rather cumbersome, and “serv- 
ices” is too vague and has too many other meanings in the English 
language. The term “offices” is wholly satisfactory, just so we bear 
in mind that the primary emphasis in this case falls on the element of 
service; altho the element of authority should not be ignored. 

The Bible clearly stresses this element of service for office-bearers. 
II Cor. 8:4 speaks of “the fellowship in the ministering to the saints.” 
Eph. 4:11,12 tell us that God gave the various offices “for the per- 
fecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building 
up of the body of Christ.” 

Ecclesiastical offices are not merely beneficial to the Church of 
Christ, but they should be termed indispensable, inasmuch as they 
were instituted of God. Were not the Apostles sent forth by Christ, 
vested with His authority? (Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21; II Cor. 5: 
18-21). And does not the Bible offer abundant evidence for the con- 


1. Cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring* van. de Xerkenordening-, 1923, pp. 3, 4. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


15 


tention that the offices in the Church, both special and regular offices, 
are ordained of God? I Cor. 12:28 tells us that “God hath set some 
in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, . . . Rom. 10:15 
asks, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” In I Thess. 
5:12 the apostle says, “But we beseech you, brethren to know them 
that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord . . . Confer 
also Eph. 4:11-13; II Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5. 

Furthermore, subjection to such as minister as office-bearers is also 
urged in Matt. 10:40; “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he 
that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me.”; and in Heb. 13:17, 
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them.” 

Secondly Article 1 mentions the assemblies. (Articles 29-52). Al- 
most needless to say, the Church Order does not refer in this article 
to the “assembling together” (Heb. 10:25) of the believers on the 
Lord’s Day for worship. Article 1, when speaking of assemblies has 
reference to ecclesiastical assemblies, i. e., consistory meetings, classi- 
cal meetings and synodical meetings, (cf. Art. 29). 

These assemblies have been instituted and these gatherings are be- 
ing held for the purpose of governing the Church or Churches aright; 
to assist each other in difficult cases; to help each other in the mainte- 
nance of doctrinal purity; to maintain the offices ordained of God, and 
to promote order and congregational worship. 

Next, supervision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, are men- 
tioned. (Articles 53-70.) Supervision of doctrine is very necessary in- 
asmuch as purity of doctrine is to the Church of Christ what a good 
foundation is to a building. Without purity of doctrine the Church of 
Christ fails and falls, (cf. Acts 28:28-31; Gal. 1:8, 9; II John 10.) 

Supervision regarding the sacraments is necessary because these 
are the signs of God’s saving- grace in Christ, and the sealing ordin- 
ances of His covenant to His people. Abuse and corruption regarding 
the sacraments is a very serious matter. Indeed, desecration of the 
sacraments merits the wrath of God over His congregation, (cf. I Cor. 
11:17-34.) 

The ceremonies mentioned in Article 1 include the installation of 
office-bearer, the solemnization of marriage before the Church of God, 
and other ecclesiastical solemnities. “Let all things be done decently 
and in order.” (I Cor. 14:40) also pertains to these solemnities of con- 
gregational worship. 

Finally, this first article mentions Christian discipline. Christian 
discipline concerns first of all the profession and conduct of all church 
members. Secondly it concerns in a special way the profession and 
conduct of office-bearers in their capacity as office-bearers. Discipline 
as it pertains to church members as such, consists of admonition and 
ultimately, if need be, of excommunication. Discipline regarding office- 
bearers in their capacity as office-bearers consists of admonition, and 
furthermore, if need be, of suspension and deposition. The right and 
the duty of the Churches to exercise discipline cannot be questioned by 
anyone who acknowledges the Bible as God’s own Word. Matt. 16:19, 

“I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ” 

Matt. 18:17, “. . . If he refuses to hear the church also, let him be 
unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.” Titus 3:10, “A factious 
man after a first and second admonition refuse.” (cf. also John 20:23; 
Rom. 16:17; I Cor. 5:3-5; II Thess. 3:6,14, etc.) 


16 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ARTICLE II. 

The offices cure of four kinds: of the Ministers of the Word , 
of the t Professors of Theology , of the Elders , and of the Deacons . 

THE OFFICES 

1. Ecclesiastic offices three in number. 

All ecclesiastical offices find their origin in Christ, the Church’s 
only Head and Supreme Ruler. No office-bearer in the Church has 
any authority in himself. All the authority which any ecclesiastical 
office-bearers possess is delegated authority, authority given to them 
by Christ and to be exercised by them for Christ. Christ is the 
Church’s chief Prophet, only High Priest, and Eternal King. (Hei- 
delberg Catechism Q.31.) Consequently, the offices as they have 
been ordained for the organized Church here on earth are nothing 
but extensions and continuations of Christ’s three-fold office. Again, 
back of all authority, also all ecclesiastical authority, standeth God, 
the Triune, absolutely sovereign God. Through the second person 
of the Trinity, Christ Jesus, He governs and blesses His church. Our 
fall into sin is three-fold. We fell as prophets, priests, and kings. We 
lost true knowledge, holiness, and righteousness. As rational think- 
ing creatures we lost true knowledge and fell from our prophetic 
office; we became prophets of falsehood, of the devil’s lie. As moral 
creatures (capable of choice, desire, and devotion) we lost true holi- 
ness; i. e., love and consecration to God, and we fell from our priestly 
office; we became" priests unto Satan and sin. As executive creatures 
(capable of rationally and morally conditional activity) we lost true 
righteousness, and fell from our royal office; we became kings of un- 
righteousness. We repeat therefore, our fall into sin was three-fold, 
in keeping with man’s essential being as God’s image-bearer. Conse- 
quently, we must be saved in a three-fold sense, and restored in a 
three-fold sense, i. e., as prophets, priests, and kings. From the fore- 
going it follows that the Saviour also holds a three-fold office. He 
is the second Adam and as such the Prophet, Priest, and King of His 
Church. 

For this reason the Old Testament knew three primary offices; 
no more, no less: Prophets, Priests, and Kings. They were represen- 
tatives of the Christ to come. For this same reason the New Testa- 
ment period has three primary offices; no more, no less: Ministers, 
Deacons, and Elders, representing Christ respectively as Prophet, 
Priest, and King of His Church. 

It should not be forgotten, however, that particularly during the 
transitional period of the Church of Christ on earth, for some time 
after Christ’s ascension to Heaven, the three-fold office of Christ did 
not stand out clearly. Various temporary offices and circumstances 
somewhat obscured the facts set forth above. But as the formative 
period of the New Testament passes (and with it the special and in- 
clusive apostolic office, the temporary prophetic offices, etc.) and con- 
ditions assume a more permanent aspect, the three-fold office of Christ 
in His Church also begins to stand out with greater clarity. The office 
of the Ministry of the Word is spoken of or alluded to in II Cor. 
5:18-19; Eph. 4:11,12; I Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:9; Heb. 13:7. The office 
of the diaconate or deaconship finds Scriptural expression especially 
in Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8-12. Of the office of the eldership 
we read especially in Acts 14:23; Rom. 12:8; Eph. 4:11-13: I Thess 
5:12; I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Heb. 13:17-24. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


17 


2. Why Article 2 mentions four kinds of offices. 

But if there is Scriptural warrant for but three permanent New 
Testament offices, why then does our Church Order mention four? 
There is a historical explanation for this fact. In Eph. 4:11 we read: 
“And He gave some to be apostles and some prophets; and some evan- 
gelists; and some pastors and teachers.” Now the offices of apostles, 
prophets, and evangelists, it is generally agreed, were temporary of- 
fices which God did not mean to continue, and which passed away 
when the Churches were fully established. As to the latter expression 
of Eph. 4:11, “and some pastors and teachers,” some of the Reformers 
believed that it referred to two distinct offices in the New Testament 
Church, namely that of the Ministers of the Word, and that of the 
Teachers of Theology. Calvin himself gave this interpretation of 
Eph. 4:11. (Cf. Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians.) 

As a result of this interpretation the Church Order, already in its 
first redaction gave four permanent New Testament offices. Today it 
is generally realized that the expression “and some, pastors and 
teachers,” of Eph. 4:11, refers to the single offices of the Ministry of 
the Word. If this were not the case, then in keeping with the whole 
passage the expression should and would read as follows: “and some 
pastors; and some, teachers;” note the difference in punctuation and 
its significance. It is true that the Bible clearly speaks of the duties 
of teachers of Theology (cf. f . i. II Tim. 2:2) but this task is but a 
specialized duty of the Gospel ministry. Professors of Theology as 
far as our Churches are concerned, are Ministers of the Gospel. (Cf. 
Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology.) 

The separate mention of Professors of Theology in Article 2 is con- 
fusing, and rests upon a misunderstanding of former years. In fact, 
the original expression used in Latin was “Doctor,” which simply 
means teacher or instructor. And this term “Doctor” was applied to 
all teachers of religion also in State universities, though these teach- 
ers held no ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Do not forget in this 
connection that there was a very close bond of union between the 
Government and the Churches in these early days. Our fathers sought 
the sponsorship and special, if not exclusive, favor of the Govern- 
ment. And the Government often insisted on a definite measure of 
control over the Churches. It is not unlikely that this situation, 
which time and a further removal from Rome would correct, influ- 
enced our fathers to view matters on this score as they did. 

It is agreed by many that it would have been far better if in 1914 
we had simply rendered Article 2 as follows: “The offices are of three 
kinds: of the Ministers of the Word, of the Elders, and of the Dea- 
cons.” Now our redaction of 1914 still reads: “De diensten zijn vier- 
derlei: der Dienaren des Woords, der Doctoren, der Ouderlingen, en 
der Diakenen.” And in our English translation of 1920 we have con- 
veniently substituted, “Professors of Theology,” for the expression, 
“der Doctoren.” 

The Reformed Churches of Holland have to this day also retained 
the old redaction on this point. The Rev. Joh. Jansen, one of Hol- 
land’s outstanding authorities in Church Order matters, contributes 
this fact to ecclesiastical conservatism in the evil sense of the word. 

Almost needless to say, the fact that the actual offices in the 
Church of Christ are limited to the three indicated, does not mean 
that there is no room for various assistants. The Levites, for instance, 
were assistants to the Priests. Their work and authority belonged to 
the primary office of the priesthood. I Cor. 12:28 speaks specifically 
of “helps.” Paul refers to assistants and helpers repeatedly. Student 


18 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


exhorters, Catechism teachers not holding office, organists, Sunday 
School teachers, Sick visitors, Gospel workers, Finance Committees, 
Collection, Building and Ground Committees, Ushers, Janitors, etc., all 
these (when they are appointed and controlled by the consistories) 
may be considered to be “helps.” They all fill a useful and necessary 
place in our churches. 


ARTICLE III 

No one, though he be a Professor of Theology, Elder or 
Deacon, shall be permitted to enter upon the Ministry of the 
Word and the Sacraments without having been lawfully called 
thereunto. And when anyone acts contrary thereto, and after 
being frequently admonished does not desist, the Classis shall 
judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic or is to be pun- 
ished in some other way. 

NO MINISTRY OF WORD AND SACRAMENTS 
WITHOUT A LAWFUL CALL 

1. What is the historical background of Article 3? 

One of the many problems that the Churches of the Reformation 
period had to cope with was that of self-appointed preachers. Church 
life during the first few decades was not at all well ordered. It could 
not be. It was a period of new beginnings and of persecution. Many 
of the Ministers of that early day were former priests. Others were 
men without special theological training, though having in other re- 
spects more than ordinary ability. Some of those who aspired to the 
Ministry simply started to preach wherever they could get a hearing. 
Many of these men refused to submit to an examination and did not 
care to place themselves under the supervision of any Consistory. 
Men of questionable character and purposes, by eloquent and fair 
speech would create a following for themselves, to the disruption of 
Churches and ultimate spiritual damage to many. Very often they 
would travel from place to place. Our fathers had more than one 
designation for this class of self-seeking, self-appointed, religious 
freebooters, whose sensational methods often attracted many. They 
were called “tramps,” “intruders,” and “schismatics” (loopers, in- 
dringers, scheurmakers.) 

As early as 1563 the Churches of Flanders decided: “That none shall 
be permitted to administer the Word of God without a lawful call, 
and such as boldly intrude themselves shall be punished.” The Wese- 
lian Convention, 1568, decided that none should be admitted to the 
Ministry “without lawful calling, election, approbation, proper exami- 
nation and observance of that lawful order.” Subsequent Synods, 
Embden, 1571; Dordrecht, 1574; Dordrecht, 1578, took additional ac- 
tion against these wilful, self-seeking, office-less men. The Synod of 
Middelburg, 1581, gave us Article 3 of our Church Order as it now 
reads. 

2. Who alone may administer the Word and Sacraments 
in our Churches? 

Article 3 provides that none “shall be permitted to enter upon the 
Ministry of the Word and of the Sacraments without having been 
called thereunto.” The Church Order stipulates in Article 4 that a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


19 


lawful call includes election, examination, approbation, and ordina- 
tion. Of these we shall speak in due order. Just now we consider not 
the call to the Ministry and its elements, but rather the ground upon 
which Article 3 rests. These grounds are Biblical, beyond doubt. 

The Old Testament office-bearers were called and charged of God. 
The Apostles were called directly by Christ. False prophets and false 
apostles had no calling and charge of God. (cf. Jer. 23:21, 32; John 
5:43.) Those who were called and sent of God came upon His author- 
ity. (cf. Isaiah 6:8; Jer. 1:1; Rom. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; etc.) The Apostles 
and their helpers were called “Ministers of Christ,” Col. 1:7; “servants 
of Christ,” II Cor. 5:20. And because the Apostles and their helpers 
did not come upon their own authority, nor upon the authority of 
men, but solely upon God’s authority, the Churches had to obey them 
and respect them. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and sub- 
mit to them.” Heb. 13:17a; “Esteem them exceeding highly in love for 
their work’s sake.” I Thess. 5:13. 

Clearly, the Bible stresses divine appointment for the Prophets and 
Apostles. But this is likewise true for those that were to succeed 
them. They also are sent of God and called of the Holy Spirit. “Pray 
ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into 
his harvest.” Matt. 9:38; “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the 
Church of the Lord which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 
20:28. (cf. also I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11, etc.) To preach, one must 
be sent. “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” Rom. 
10:15. No man may assume this task upon his own authority. “And 
no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, 
even as was Aaron.” Heb. 5:4. 

What would we think of a man who without an election, would 
nevertheless insist on doing the work of an Elder or of a Deacon? 

Dr. H. Bavinck is thoroughly Biblical when he maintains that all 
believers have a calling to preach or to witness, but that only those 
who have a definite charge of God may do so with authority and in 
the name of the Lord, preaching the Gospel as a savor of life unto 
life, and as a savor of death unto death, i (cf. Isaiah 43:10, 12; Luke 
10:16; Acts 8:4; II Cor. 2:14-17.) 

This special call to the ministry and its charge is no longer given 
in direct and extraordinary fashion, as in the case of the Apostles. 
In their day the Church of Christ was in its infancy and conditions 
were extraordinary. When extraordinary circumstances cease to exist, 
God uses ordinary means. These ordinary means pertaining to the 
calling to the ministry include the internal and the external call. 

What do we mean by the internal call? The internal call may be 
designated as a personal conviction of heart on the part of a brother 
in Christ that God would have him become a Minister of the Gospel. 
Dr. H. Bouwman, in his Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, enumerates and 
describes five elements essential to the internal call to the ministry. 1 2 
Briefly stated, they are: 

1. A persistent love for the gospel ministry, a strong desire to 
serve God and His Kingdom in the ministry, bom of prayerful medi- 
tation. 

2. A certain amount of ability. He who aspires to the ministry 
must not only have the necessary strength of body and character, but 


1. H. Bavinck: Oereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1918, IV, pp. 410-415. 

2. H. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, 1928, Vol. I, pp. 368-70. 


20 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


also certain indispensable talents, as for instance, pertaining to mind 
and speech. 

3. Readiness to deny oneself utterly; readiness to serve the Lord 
wherever and however He may appoint. 

4. Unselfish aims; a desire to see God glorified and His Kingdom 
extended. None should desire the ministry merely as a profession and 
as a livelihood. 

5. An open road; the ways and means essential for the necessary 
preparation will be provided by God in His providence, if one is truly 
called of Him. If one feels called to the ministry but finds that the 
road leading to the ministry is providentially closed, all his prayers 
notwithstanding, then he may be sure that he is not actually called 
of God. 

But the internal call must always receive its ratification of God 
through the external call. One may “feel” that he is called of God, 
but one’s feelings are not infallible. One may be well prepared and 
well qualified as far as man can judge, and yet not be called of God. 
How can one know that his feelings and desires are actually tokens 
of a call of God? Of this he may rest assured if, in addition to what 
he sincerely believes, and feels in his heart to be a divine call to the 
ministry, God also calls him through the instrumentality of one of 
His Churches. This we term the external call. 

That God calls His servants to the ministry of the Word and of 
the Sacraments, under normal New Testament conditions, through 
the Church, is beyond doubt. When an Apostle was needed to fill the 
vacancy created by Judas Iscariot, we read: “And they (the believers, 
the Church) put forward two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was sur- 
named Justus, and Matthias.” Acts 1:23. And concerning Titus we 
read: “Who was also appointed of the churches to travel with us in 
the matter of this grace.” II Cor. 8:19. No one may ignore this ec- 
clesiastical appointment and just assume the ministry unto himself. 

3. Why professors of theology, Elders and Deacons are specifically 
excluded from the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments. 

Elders and Deacons receive special mention iin Article 3 for no 
other reason than that some Elders and Deacons assumed unto them- 
selves the duties and privileges of the ministry. Elders represent 
Christ as King. It is their specific duty and privilege to rule. Deacons 
represent Christ as Priest. It is their specific duty and privilege to 
show mercy. Ministers represent Christ as Prophet. It is their spe- 
cific duty and privilege to make known the will of God; to speak 
His Word. And although it is true that Ministers as we know them, 
are at the same time Elders, and therefore help to rule the Church 
over and above their duty and privilege to instruct the people, yet it 
is not time that Elders have the right of the ministry of the Word 
and the Sacraments, (cf. I Tim 5:17, and the Form for the Ordina- 
tion of Elders and Deacons.) 

Regarding professors of theology, it should be recalled that years 
ago many men were professors of theology at state universities, who 
had never been ordained to the regular ministry. Some of these were 
tempted to preach nevertheless. Yet our fathers realized that such 
should not be done. No one, unless he has received a charge from 
God can act as His representative or as His messenger to His people. 
A man may be a doctor of law and have excellent qualifications to 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


21 


serve as judge, but unless he is appointed to serve as judge, he has no 
authority to act the part of a judge in our courts. Unordained in- 
truders may not be admitted to our pulpits, but neither may unor- 
dained professors of theology. The founders of the Reformed 
Churches certainly held the office and divine appointment to office 
in very high esteem. 

Inasmuch as our present theological professors are all ordained 
men, this article does not affect them. But they are permitted to 
preach by virtue of the fact that they are Ministers, and not because 
they are professors of theology. Our Form for the Installation of 
Professors of Theology even presupposes that all who are appointed 
as professors of theology are ordained men. It speaks of the brother 
to be installed as being “a brother in the holy ministry.” On the 
other hand, Synod of 1930 decided: “The nominees (for professors of 
theology) shall preferably be ordained men that have had some ex- 
perience in the Ministry of the Word.” (Acts, Synod 1930, Art. 23.) 

4. What is to be done when anyone administers the Word or the- 
Sacraments without due ordination? 

Anyone transgressing the good rule shall be admonished concerning 
the error of his way. By whom? By his consistory of course. For all 
discipline concerning church members in their non-office-bearing ca- 
pacity, originates and centers in the local Churches. If the guilty one 
persists, Classis must judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic 
(one who creates factions or divisions in Churches) or whether he 
shall be punished in some other way.' The first three Synods (1571, 
1574, 1578) left no choice. He who persisted should be declared to 
other Classes to be schismatic. This implied, as it does today, that 
such an one should be disciplined as a schismatic. For he who is 
guilty of tearing apart the Church of God is unworthy of the Lord’s 
Table, except he repent, (cf. Form for the Administration of the 
Lord’s Supper.) The Synod of 1581 made milder treatment possible. 
It added the concluding phrase to Article 3: “. ... or is to be pun- 
ished in some other way^’ This clause permits for instance, mere 
admonition, without the giving of publicity of the transgressor’s ir- 
regularity as a warning measure to all the Churches. 

What is to be done when an unordained individual, not a member 
of one of bur Churches, is permitted to preach the Word from any 
of our pulpits? Or what is to be done if a Minister of another de- 
nomination, concerning whose soundness there is a well-founded 
doubt, is admitted to one of our pulpits? In such cases it becomes 
the duty of Classis to warn its Churches and to admonish the guilty 
consistory. If this should not help, more drastic action would be in 
order. 

Needless to say, cases of this kind often require a great deal of 
consideration, instruction, and patience, inasmuch as many church 
members are not clear on the issues at stake and the dangers in- 
volved. And many “intruders” seem to be very sincere and effective. 
Swayed by eloquence and emotionalism, and in the midst of contro- 
versy, very few people can judge objectively and soberly. 

Nevertheless, let it also be said, that violations on this point also 
require determined opposition. Laxity on this score would ultimately 
open our pulpits to errors of all kinds. 


22 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ARTICLE IV 

The lawful calling, of those who have not been previously in 
office, consists : 

First, in the ELECTION by the Consistory, and the Deacons, 
after preceding prayers, with due observance of the regulations 
established by the Consistory for this purpose, and of the 
ecclesiastical ordinance, that only those can for the first time 
be called to the Ministry of the Word who have been declared 
eligible by the Churches, according to the rule in this matter; 
and furthermore with the advice of Classis or of the counselor 
appointed for this purpose by the Classis; 

Secondly, in the EXAMINATION both of doctrine and life 
which shall be conducted by the Classis, to which the call must 
be submitted for approval, and which shall take place in the 
presence of three Delegates of Synod from the nearest Classes: 

Thirdly, in the APPROBATION by the members of the 
calling church, when, the name of the Minister having been 
announced for two successive Sundays, no lawful objection 
arises; which approbation, however , 1 is not required in case the 
election takes place with the co-operation of the congregation 
by choosing out of a nomination previously made. 

Finally, in the public ORDINATION in the presence of the 
congregation, which shall take place with appropriate stipula- 
tions and interrogations, admonitions and prayers and impo- 
sition of hands by the officiating. Minister (and by other Minis- 
ters who are present) agreeably to the Form for that purpose. 

CALLING TO THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD 
AND SACRAMENTS 

1. The Election. 

a. Election takes place “after preceding prayers.” 

In Church Order redactions of the sixteenth century this phrase 
reads: “after preceding fastings and prayers.” The task of securing 
a worthy Minister of the Gospel was much more difficult in former 
years than it is now. At first there was not a class or group of men 
known as candidates for the ministry. Our candidates must be well 
prepared and well qualified spiritually and only then are they declared 
candidates. In former days the Churches as a rule, had to find their 
own way. “Indringers” (intruders) and “loopers” (migratory, self- 
appointed preachers) were numerous. And then as now, people were 
apt to be swayed by some unworthy but eloquent stranger. And so the 
calling of a Minister was a very serious and difficult task. After mat- 
ters were arranged so that unworthy persons could no longer creep in 
without much difficulty, days of fasting for this special purpose be- 
came less necessary. Finally, fasting in connection with the calling 
of a minister fell completely into disuse. Under these changed con- 
ditions the Synod of Utrecht, 1905 (Netherlands) and likewise our 
own Synod of 1914 altered the phrase in question so that we now 
have merely, “after preceding prayers.” It is worthy of note that 
provisions for fasting were never made regarding the election of 
Elders and Deacons. Neither when it concerned the calling of a Min- 
ister already ordained and having served some other Church. Doubt- 
less, the fact that the custom of fasting was abandoned for all other 
occasions, also helped to make this present provision obsolete. (We 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


23 


are not now answering the question whether or not this discontinu- 
ance of fasting in our Churches can be fully justified.) 

Prom the foregoing it may also be inferred that it was the original 
intent of this article that the congregation should come together for 
a special prayer service before the work of securing a Minister was 
undertaken, particularly when a choice was to be made from brethren 
who had not previously served as Ministers. We now, as a rule, in- 
terpret it to mean that no election shall take place unless the meeting 
has been opened with prayer. If the Church Order meant no more 
the expression would be rather superfluous. Who would think of con- 
ducting a congregational gathering without due prayers? Should we 
not go back to the old custom? Is not the calling of a Minister 
amply worthy of a special prayer service? However, in this connec- 
tion let us also remember that conditions have changed. Today much 
prayerful labor is being performed before applicants are declared 
candidates. When Article 4 was first written the Churches did not 
declare xpen to be candidates for the Ministry. They had to choose 
more or less at random from men whom they thought fit for the min- 
istry. At any rate, upon ‘the Sunday before the work of calling a 
Minister begins in Consistory, the sermon should be appropriate and 
the congregational prayers specific. 

b. Election “by the Consistory and the Deacons.” 

Properly the Elders of a Church constitute its Consistory and the 
Deacons its Diaconate. The Elders represent Christ as the King of 
His Church. The Deacons represent Christ as the Priest of His 
Church. The Consistory rules the Church in the name of Christ. The 
Diaconate shows mercy in the name of Christ. Now the Church Order 
stipulates that in small Churches the Deacons may, and in certain 
cases must be added to the Consistory, (cf. Art. 37). In all such cases 
Elders are really Assistant-Deacons, and Deacons Assistant-Elders. 
They partake of each other’s office in a very distinct fashion. In all 
Churches in which Article 37 is operating, the Elders and Deacons, 
(and the Ministers inasmuch as Ministers are members of the Consis- 
tory, in their capacity as Elders) naturally work together in nomi- 
nating and electing men to the ministerial office. 

But Article 4 stipulates that also in Churches where the normal 
situation obtains, i.e. where the two offices function each in their own 
sphere, that also in these Churches the Elders and the Deacons shall 
meet together whenever a brother is to be elected to the ministry. 
Why ? It is the position of the Church Order that the duty of election 
to office (Minister, Deacon, Elder), does not belong to any one of the 
offices in particular, but to all the offices working in unison. Strictly 
speaking of course, appointment to office in the Church belongs to 
Christ only. Normally He designates through the Church and appoints 
through the offices. (For a fuller consideration of the matter of ap- 
pointment to office through all three offices of the Church, see our 
discussion of Article 22.) 

The Church Order neither here nor elsewhere prescribed direct ap- 
pointment through the congregation. So-called “free elections” in 
Churches already organized, are contrary to our adopted rules. The 
Churches of the Reformation period ruled against these “free elec- 
tions” for more than one reason. In the first place many were very 
ignorant in those early days. Large numbers of those who left the 
Roman Church, in the wake of the majority, lacked consecration and 
conviction. Others, feeling the sway of Independentism or Congrega- 
tionalism — today we might speak of Undenominationalism — were too 


24 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


revolutionary. Then there was also the danger that men, not to be 
desired for the work of the ministry but with pleasing personalities 
and eloquent speech, might be elected, if the whole matter rested with 
the congregation. 

But Bouwman judges: “Although Article 4 of the Church Order does 
not mean to limit the congregation in any of its rights, the formulation 
of this article does not give full expression to the prerogatives of the 
congregation.” 1 And Jansen suggests that a future redaction of the 
Church Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands should 
incorporate the phrase: “with the co-operation of the congregation” 
in Article 4, 2 We agree with him. Article 4 of our redaction would 
likewise be more complete if it read: “. . . . election by the Consistory 
and the Deacons, with the co-operation of the congregation. . . .” For 
to be sure, co-operation on the part of the congregation is in full har- 
mony with Reformed Church polity. In the Church of Rome office- 
bearers appoint new office-bearers without consulting the congrega- 
tion. The original Lutherans permitted the Government to elect its 
office-bearers. According to the Independent or Congregational sys- 
tems, the congregation must appoint directly. But according to the 
Presbyterian or Reformed system Christ elects His office-bearers, by 
vote of the Church under the guidance and supervision of the office- 
bearers previously appointed. And this is doubtlessly Scriptural. For 
the Bible attributes a guiding control over elections and power of 
appointment to the office-bearers. Acts 6:3: “Look ye out therefore, 
brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit 
and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business*” Acts 14:23: 
“And when they had appointed for them elders in every church . . . .” 
I Tim. 5:22: “Lay hands hastily on no man. . .” Titus 1:5: “For this 
cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee 
charge.” However it should never be forgotten that the duty of con- 
trol and guidance, and the power of appointment which Consistories 
exercise, have come to them through the Churches. Christ authorizes 
in the first place His Church, and secondly, and in a derived sense the 
Consistories. The truth of this contention becomes plain when we re- 
member that when congregations are organized, the body of believers 
appoints office-bearers directly. If this were no inherent right of the 
congregation, this could never be done. 

But the Bible also exemplifies congregational co-operation. Ac- 
cording to Acts 1:23 a group of one hundred twenty believers co- 
operated with the Apostles in the nomination of two men, one of 
whom was to be appointed Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot. And 
before the Apostles appointed the first seven Deacons (Acts 6:1-6) the 
congregation chose them. And in II Cor. 8:19 Paul speaks of an 
Evangelist or Helper, “who was appointed by the Churches to travel 
with us in the matter of this grace. . .” 

Consistories should therefore work for congregational co-oper- 
ation, also in making nominations for the ministerial office. It is well 
to give all members an opportunity to commit themselves. Names of 
brethren which anyone desires to see nominated can be presented in 
writing to the Consistory and upon invitation of the Consistory prior 
to the making of nominations. If ever a large portion of a Church 
desires to see a brother nominated, but the Consistory judges that he 
should not be nominated, the Consistory may find it advisable and 


1. Bouwman: G-ereformeerd Xerkrecht, 1928, I, p. 385. 

2. Jansen: Xorfce Verklaring van de Xerkenordeningr, 1923, p. 17. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


25 


necessary to explain its stand. In cases of serious conflict and differ- 
ences of opinion, and as a measure of last resort, the major assem- 
blies (Classis, in this case) may be consulted. This step, needless to 
say, should seldom be necessary. 

The question whether or not women should take part in congrega- 
tional elections we would answer negatively. Voetius, the great ex- 
pert in Reformed Church government, excludes women from Church 
elections inasmuch as congregational elections are Church govern- 
mental in character. 1 2 And women, according to Holy Writ, are not 
to teach in the Churches nor to help govern the same. (I Cor. 14:34.) 
Bouwman judges likewise.2 So does Jansen. 3 Those who have not 
yet made confession of faith have no right to vote inasmuch as they 
are, ecclesiastically speaking, minors. Members being disciplined 
have no right to vote inasmuch as censure implies that all rights of 
Church membership are held in abeyance, rendered non-active, tempo- 
rarily at least. 

c- Regulations adopted by Consistories for election 
of Ministers, to be observed. 

The Church Order presupposes, here in Article 4, and again in the 
article governing the election of Elders and Deacons, that each Con- 
sistory has a set of rules according to which elections shall be con- 
ducted. Whenever the congregation is called together for the purpose 
of electing office-bearers, partiality and arbitrariness should be out 
of the question. To avoid these evils, a set of rules consistently fol- 
lowed, is very desirable. 

Then again, certain questions should not merely be left to usage 
and custom. For instance: Proper announcement of nominations 
should be made prior to every election; elections should take place 
by ballot; a majority vote should elect; etc. These and like rules are 
not found in the Church Order. They should be incorporated in a 
short set of rules governing election. Furthermore, problems are apt 
to present themselves at any meeting. For example: In case more 
brethren receive a majority vote than the number of vacancies to be 
filled, what is to be done? When two candidates for one office receive 
an equal number of votes, what should be the procedure? Questions 
such as these cannot be decided by the congregation inasmuch as the 
Consistory is the ruling body and not the congregational gathering. 
Moreover, for the Consistory to decide on such problems at the time 
when they present themselves might open the door to partiality or 
at least to the semblance of partiality. Permanent rules should gov- 
ern such cases. 

d. Only those declared eligible by the Churches may be called. 

The original Church Order (Dort 1618-19) did not contain the pro- 
vision now under consideration. A “praeparatoir” examination, i.e., a 
preparatory examination was unknown. The Churches could call 
whomsoever they saw fit. However, preliminary examination soon 
proved to be very necessary. Without proper guidance in this respect 
many inferior and undesirable men entered the ministry. Later the 
evil of Arminianism urged and compelled the Church to establish 
greater safe-guards. The Synod of Dort 1578 already provided that 
none should be called unless they had first been tried or examined, so 
that the Churches might receive greater assurance that only “be- 


1. cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkrecht, 1928, I, p. 386. 

2. Idem. 

3. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring' van Xerkenordening, 1923, p. 18. 


26 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


quaeme personen” (qualified persons) should be called. Various Pro- 
vincial Synods, before and after the great Synod of Dort referred to 
above, made like decisions. But it found no expression in the general 
Church Order of Dort. The Secession Churches of Holland (1834) 
instituted a preliminary examination conducted by the curators of its 
Theological School. Successful applicants were declared Candidates 
by these curators. After the union with the Doleantie Churches 
(1892) this preliminary examination and right of declaring men 
Candidates was returned to the various Classes. Then in 1905 the 
Synod of Utrecht included the following provision in Article 4 of the 
Church Order: “Met onderhouding .... van de kerkelijke ordinantie 
dat alleen diegenen voor het eerst tot den dienst des Woords kunnen 
beroepen worden, die door de Classe, waarin zij wonen, praeparatoir 
geexamineerd zijn.” This provision stipulates that a preliminary ex- 
amination must be taken by men who desire to enter the ministry, 
which examination is to be conducted by the Classes in which they 
reside, and which body also declares successful applicant Candidates. 

In our own Christian Reformed Churches the curators have up to 
the year 1937 examined and declared men Candidates. 

(Our body of curators are now known by the more common designa- 
tion: Board of Trustees.) However Synod of 1937 decided that begin- 
ning with the year 1938, Synod itself will examine and declare men 
Candidates for the ministry, instead of doing so through a board of 
trustees. This decision was taken upon the following two grounds: 

“1. The best interest of our Church requires that whatsoever our Church 
assemblies can reasonably do directly should not be delegated to commit- 
tees, particularly not when it concerns very important Church work. 

2. Under the present system (Board of Trustees of Calvin College and 
Seminary declaring Candidates) our Eldership has no part in this very es- 
sential work. If Synod would do this work itself, this undesirable situ- 
ation would be rectified." (Acts 1937, Art. 53) 

The Synod of 1939 declared that the synodical examination is pre- 
paratory in character and deals with the following matters: 1. Dog- 
matics; 2. Practices; 3. Specimen sermon, (cf. Acts, 1939, p. 74.) 

e. Election not to take place without advice of Classis 
or Counselor. 

Article 4 also provides that no election to the ministry shall take 
place without advice of Classis. Why this ruling ? No Christian Re- 
formed Church stands by itself. There is a very close bond between 
the various Churches. He who receives the right to administer the 
Word and Sacraments in one Church, is thereby given authority to 
do the same in all other Christian Reformed Churches, upon re- 
quest of the Consistories concerned, of course. Furthermore, the 
Minister will be constantly delegated to the major assemblies, and 
he will thus help to govern other Christian Reformed Churches, par- 
ticularly those of his own Classis. He also becomes eligible to the 
ministry in any other local Church in the denomination without re- 
examination by a Classis. For these reasons, the Classis, and through 
the Classis, all the Churches, have been given a certain measure of 
control in this important matter. However this provision is first of 
all meant to be a safe-guard for the Church calling. A whole Classis 
is sometimes in better position to judge concerning the desirability of 
a contemplated call than the one calling Church by itself. The phrase 
“or of the counselor appointed for this purpose by the Classis,” was 
added for practical reasons. A Classis meets in regular session only 
intermittently and in regions where distances are great only twice a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


27 


year. A Church in need of a Minister usually desires to call forth- 
with, rather than wait for Classes to meet. For a Church to wait with 
the calling of a Minister for a Classical gathering would mean a 
vacancy of many years in many instances, inasmuch as Churches are 
often compelled to call several times before securing a Minister. 
Moreover, the counselor as representative of Classis must assist the 
vacant Church with his help and advice regarding the work of calling 
a Minister whenever necessary. He is expected to do what Classis 
would do directly if it were in session, namely advise the Consistory 
as to a prospective Minister. He is also expected to be present if cir- 
cumstances permit, at the election, in order that he preside at the 
meeting for the congregation, and he must sign the letter of call, 
to assure the brother elected that all things have proceeded according 
to ecclesiastical rules and that the call in so far is valid and carries 
Classical approval. 

Strictly speaking, the work of a counselor requires that the Con- 
sistories of vacant calling Churches consult him before nominating 
men for the vacancy. This, however, is very seldom done. The coun- 
selor is usually asked for his approval after the nomination (usually 
a trio) has been made. And counselors almost uniformly approve of 
nominations without offering advice, inasmuch as advice is not asked. 
Sometimes this procedure is doubtlessly harmful. Good advice asked 
for and given at the proper time and place would be a real boon to 
many a vacant Church. But on the other hand, Consistories which 
do not need advice should not be made to feel that they must ask 
for advice. The liberty of each Church should be unhampered as far 
as denominational unity and agreement permit. 

In practice the counselor does a great deal more than the Church 
Order really indicates. He often installs Elders and Deacons, admin- 
isters the Sacraments, conducts funerals, etc. There is nothing 
against this, although no Church should feel that it is obliged to call 
on its counselor for all these matters. And no counselor should ever 
feel that the Church concerned is in duty bound to call on him for 
all these labors. 

Often vacant Churches when they wish to call a Minister will re- 
quest “hand-opening” which is usually termed “permission to call.” 
This is unnecessary. Every Church has an inherent right to call a 
Minister, and should do so if at all possible. “Hand-opening” is an 
old Dutch term. Years ago, when the government of Holland had 
gained possession of Church properties and paid or helped to pay the 
salary of Ministers, Classes would ask “hand-opening” for certain 
Churches which desired to call. What then was the significance of 
all this? Simply that Classis was requesting the Government to 
promise to pay the salary of a Minister, which a certain Church de- 
sired to call. The Church concerned would receive as it were, per- 
mission to extend its open hand to the Government for a donation 
toward the Minister’s salary. They who received “hand-opening” 
were thtfs placed in position to call. But all this is a thing of the 
past, and so the whole custom should be shelved. 

This does not mean that Churches may not and should not ask their 
sister Churches for advice in regard to the desirability of calling a 
Minister. Circumstances may make this very desirable. Furthermore, 
a Church which finds itself unable to pay an adequate salary, will 
have to ask assistance from her sister Churches, and cannot well pro- 
ceed with calling a Minister without advice from Classis. But no 
Church is in duty bound to ask “permission to call.” It should not 
be done as it tends to obscure the fact that each local Church has 


28 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the inherent right to call. At best a certain Church may find it nec- 
essary to take counsel with the other Churches, or to ask a promise 
of financial aid toward salaries to be paid. Rulings pertaining to 
minimum salaries to be paid, find no support in the Church Order 
either. A Classis must express itself and urge its Churches not to go 
beneath a certain stipulated minimum, but no resolution of this kind 
should be worded or interpreted in such a fashion that it exercises 
compelling force. The matter of salaries to be paid is ultimately a 
matter between the Church concerned and the Minister called. A 
Minister of some means, for instance, should be at full liberty to 
serve a Church for a very small salary, or no salary at all, if he so 
desired. Almost needless to say, if a Classis finds that one of its 
Churches is paying its Minister an insufficient salary, it may call the 
attention of such a Church to its neglect of duty and urge instant 
improvement, or if need be, help to improve the situation. 

2. The Examination. 

a. The “Pieremptoir” or Decisive Examination. 

The examination to which Article 4 refers in its second section is 
the decisive examination, the examination by which a brother is ad- 
mitted to the ministry. The preliminary examination, which merely 
admits men to the candidacy, has already been considered in the pre- 
vious sections. The peremptoir or decisive examination has been in 
use ever since the federal unity of Reformed Churches of Holland 
first began to function. At their very first general assembly, the 
Weselian Convention, 1568, it was instituted. Successive Synods 
maintained it. The praeparatoir or preliminary examination was 
added at a latter day, (1686, Synod of Den Haag; 1688, Synod of 
South Holland) to provide Churches, desiring to call such as had not 
previously served, with much needed guidance and safe-guards. 

b. Subject matter of Decisive Examinations. 

The decisive examination which admits to the ministry concerns 
itself with doctrine and practice, faith and conduct. Thus it was 
stipulated from the beginning. The subject matter for these classical 
examinations was regulated anew by our Synod of 1939. Regarding 
the nature of Classical examinations and the subject matter of these 
examinations, this Synod adopted the following: 

“That the Classical examination is decisive, and deal with the fol- 
lowing matters: 

1. Dogmatics (including knowledge of Standards and Controvers) ; 

2. Practica; 

3. Specimen sermon; 

4. Knowledge of the Scriptures; 

5. Church History; 

6. Church Polity; 

7. Ethics.” (Acts, 1939, P. 74.) 

For a differentiation between the synodical examination and the 
Classical examination, i.e., between the preparatory or preliminary 
examination and the decisive and final examination, confer the report 
on “Synodical and Classical Examination^”, Agenda, Synod 1939, 
Part I or a short excerpt of this report, Acts, Synod 1939, pages 250-2. 

As will be understood, this report as such has no official standing. 
But Synod of 1939 did accept the conclusions of this report as quoted 
above. And Synod was motivated, we may believe, by the material 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


29 


contained in this report. Candidates as well as examiners will there- 
fore do wise to take note of this report. 

Concerning the sermon to be delivered at the time of the classical 
examination Synod of 1920 decided that the candidate should preach 
for the congregation in whose midst the Classis is being held, and 
that the classical delegates should attend this special congregational 
service. Synod of 1934 made this matter optional. Each Classis now 
arranges this matter as it judges best. The specimen sermon may be 
delivered before the entertaining Church, usually on the evening be- 
fore the actual examination, or the specimen sermon may be delivered 
before the Classis at one of its regular sessions. 

The present authors much prefer the former method. It is fairer 
to the candidate for it gives him a “rear’ audience and more time. 
And the Classical delegates can judge far better as to the candidate's 
ability on the pulpit. 

c. By whom the decisive examination is td be conducted. 

According to the inherent rights of every local Church, it would 
be up to the Consistory of the calling Church to take the final ex- 
aminations of admittance, after a Candidate had accepted the call 
extended to him. But denominational unity requires approbation of 
the call by the Classis. Consequently, for very good and practical 
reasons, Hiis examination has been assigned to the Classes. First of 
all, because Consistories as a rule are not qualified to conduct this 
examination as it should be done, nor are they always able to evalu- 
ate an examination aright. Consequently, the Classis lends its assist- 
ance. Secondly, this examination has been assigned to the Classes, 
inasmuch as the Classis is asked to approve of a call extended, and 
therefore in the matter of calling definitely exercises its right and 
duty of supervision. And furthermore, the decisive examination ad- 
mits not only to the administration of the Word and the Sacraments 
in the one Church calling, but to all the Churches of the denomina- 
tion, by dint of federal agreement. 

It is even added that this examination “shall take place in the pres- 
ence of three Delegates of Synod from the nearest Classes.” This 
provision was included as an additional safeguard. In days of laxity 
and error sometimes a whole territory or Classes is more or less weak 
and unsound. Representative delegates from other Classes in such 
instances might prove to be a real blessing. Moreover, as noted above, 
the decisive examination of admittance is valid for all the Churches 
of the whole denomination. Consequently, so the conclusions ran, all 
the Churches should be represented, at least by a few able men. 

In cases of differences of opinion between a Classis and the Sy- 
nodical Delegates, mutual deliberations are in order. If these fail to 
remove the differences of opinion, the whole question of admittance 
or non-admittance goes to Synod. 

The Synodical Delegates have no decisive votes. They serve the 
Classis with their advice, as a body, after the examination. As a 
matter of custom the Classes do extend the opportunity to these Dele- 
gates to question the Candidate. 

d. Who are to be examined? 

Article 4 replies in its opening clause: “those who have not been 
previously in office.” In other words, those who are not as yet Min- 
isters. The examination is not required of Ministers who, already 
serving one of our Churches, have accepted a call to another Church 
in another Classis. Because of denominational unity one Church or 


30 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


group of Churches fully acknowledges the examination conducted by 
another Church or group of Churches. Just as we honor each other’s 
certificates of membership, so do we honor each other’s examinations 
for the Ministry. However, in days of error or neglect, a certain 
Classis might require an additional statement or examination from 
all incoming Ministers. But only then should such a step be taken 
when there are just grounds to believe that the letters of testimony 
of incoming Ministers are no longer reliable and true to fact. Thus 
the Classis of„Walcheren, Nov. 5, 1693, decreed that all incoming Min- 
isters would have to sign the “Walcherse Artikelen,” articles con- 
demning certain prevalent errors of that day. 

3. The Approbation. 

The New Testament teaches us clearly that the early Churches co- 
operated in the appointment of men to office, though it is Christ who 
actually appoints and ordains to office. Consequently, our Church Or- 
der provides that the congregation be recognized in the important 
matter of elections. And no Consistory or major assembly may ig- 
nore the voice of the Church, or arbitrarily set aside just complaints. 
For direct congregational participation in the work of elections again 
consult Acts 6:3-5. The multitude, at the request of the Apostles 
looked out for seven men of good report from among their own num- 
ber, whom the Apostles then proceeded to ordain as Deacons. Again, 
II Cor. 8i49 speaks of an evangelist who had been appointed “by the 
churches to travel” with Paul. And in II Cor. 8:25 the Apostle calls 
his helpers, “messengers of the Churches.” 

How may this approbation of the congregation spoken of in Article 
4 be secured? First, the Consistory may announce to the congrega- 
tion whom it intends to call, by which announcement the Consistory 
submits its choice for the approval of the whole Church. Those who 
might have valid objections should be invited to come to the next 
Consistory meeting to state their objections. If lawful or valid ob- 
jections are registered with the Consistory, and if these are of such 
a nature that they cannot be removed, the contemplated call will be 
withheld. If no valid objections are registered, the Consistory can 
proceed with the call. 

But the present article also permits a second possibility. The Con- 
sistory may nominate two or three or four men (as many as it sees 
fit) and then call together the congregation in order that the body of 
believers may elect one of the nominees. This latter method of ap- 
probation, as is well known, is now in general use in our Churches. 
Of the two, it is under all normal circumstances to be preferred, as 
it gives the congregation a very definite voice in the matter. Election 
by the congregation manifestly implies approbation, and therefore 
according to Article 4, approbation “is not required in case the elec- 
tion takes place with the co-operation of the congregation by choos- 
ing out of a nomination previously made.” It should not be forgot- 
ten, however, that the nomination must be announced to the congre- 
gation for its approval. If anyone in the Church concerned has 
lawful objections against one or more of the nominees, he should re- 
port at a Consistory meeting, which meeting should always be held 
before the election takes place, in order that members may have op- 
portunity to register objections. Some Consistories meet a few 
minutes before the congregational meeting at which the election is 
to take place. This cannot be called a very appropriate time for such 
a meeting, for what opportunity would a Consistory have to investi- 
gate charges or objections? 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


31 


When a Candidate has been elected should his name be announced 
to the congregation for approval? Not before the call is actually 
sent by the Consistory, for the elected brother has the preliminary 
approval of the congregation by virtue of the procedure followed 
regarding his election. But if he accepts the call, then this fact is 
announced to the Church, stating that he will be installed as Minister 
unless valid objections should prevent. The “Form of Ordination of 
the Ministers of God’s Word” clearly implies this final approbation 
by the whole congregation The opening sentence of this form reads 
as follows: “Beloved brethren, it is known unto you, that we have, 
at three different times, published the name of our brother N., here 
present, to learn whether any person has aught to offer concerning 
his doctrine and life, why he might not be ordained to the Ministry 
of the Word.” 

Article 4 provides that announcement to the congregation, when the 
first possible method of calling a Minister is followed, shall take place 
“for two successive Sundays.” Our Dutch redaction of which this is 
a translation has “de naam des Dienaars den tijd van veertien dagen 
in de Kerk afgekondigd zijnde, . . . .” Which is: “the name of the 
Minister having been announced to the Church for the period of two 
weeks.” The original intent is therefore that the name or the names 
be announced at the services of the congregation for a period of two 
weeks. At the end of this two weeks’ period the Consistory meets 
to receive possible objections. Very often a nomination is announced 
on two successive Sundays, the congregational meeting being held on 
the following Monday. This gives the congregation little more than 
one week for consideration and investigation and the Consistory no 
time at all prior to the election. Of course, the Consistory could call 
the meeting and election off at the last minute if necessary. But this 
surely would be unpleasant and disturbing. It would be far better, 
to avoid possible difficulties, to follow the original reading and intent 
of the Church Order. In harmony with this reading and intent the 
Form of Ordination even speaks of three announcements, referring 
to three announcements made on three successive Sundays, as all 
will grant. 

Inasmuch as the office-bearers issue the call, may a Consistory over- 
rule the choice of a congregation ? No. If the second method of 
calling a Minister, provided for in this Article, is followed, then the 
Consistory is duty bound to send the call to the brother elected by 
the Church. The congregational vote is binding, it is not merely ad- 
visory. The voice of the congregation is a constituent element in the 
whole process of calling and may not be side-tracked. If the Con- 
sistory had valid objections against any of the nominees, their names 
should have been removed from the nomination, and should never 
have been submitted to the choice of the Church. Only if the Con- 
sistory should hear of very serious well-founded objections, after the 
election, jyould she be permitted to withhold the call. In such a case, 
the Consistory, if at all possible, should seek the approval of the 
congregation. 

4. The Ordination. 

a. Significance of the ordination. 

The ordination may be described as the solemn acceptance of the 
ministerial office on the part of the Minister-elect, and the public 
uniting of the Minister-elect to the calling congregation. The essence 


32 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of the call to the ministry, however, is to he sought in the election; 
not in the public acceptance of, and dedication to the office. 

Under special circumstances men have entered upon their office 
without ordination or installation. During the Reformation era, per- 
secution sometimes made public ordination or installation impossible. 
Then this public ceremony was simply omitted by our fathers. The 
great authority on Reformed Church polity of Holland, Gysbertus 
Voetius, was never formally installed as Minister of Heusden, due to 
government interference. However, when circumstances are normal, 
ordination or installation may not be omitted. One simnly is not 
considered to be a Minister of a certain Church unless he has been 
duly installed. We do not look upon ordination or installation as a 
Sacrament as does the Roman Church. According to Reformed 
Church polity it is a ceremony through which a Minister-elect openly 
accepts his office in the presence of the whole congregation, and by 
which he is also openly, publicly inducted into his sacred office. All 
this is to take place, so this article provides, “with appropriate stipu- 
lation and interrogations, admonitions, and prayers and imposition of 
hands by the officiating Ministers (and by other Ministers who are 
present) agreeable to the Form for that purpose.” 

As the concluding phrase indicates, these matters have been regu- 
lated and provided for in our Form of Ordination of the Ministers of 
God’s Word, found on appended page 99-102 of the Psalter Hymnal. 

Years ago the matter of imposition or laying on of hands was not 
prescribed. It was left to the judgment of each local Church. Many 
of the Reformation Churches in Holland were opposed to the practice. 
In the Roman Church it was regarded as essential. By the imposition 
of hands, so this Church holds, brethren already ordained impart cer- 
tain necessary gifts needed for the office. Now our fathers feared 
this error. But the Synod of 1581 ruled that those who were being 
installed in the ministerial office for the first time, should be ordained 
by imposition of hands. Five years later this ruling was permanently 
established. (Synod 1586.) By this time the people had learned to 
distinguish sufficiently between the wrong and the right conception 
of this solemn act. 

What then is the significance of this solemnity? Dr. Bouwman, 
substantiating his position by a reference to Dr. Bavinck’s teachings, 
gives us in effect the following circumscription: “The laying on of 
hands is therefore a symbolic act whereby it is signified that the 
brother concerned has received the necessary gifts of office (through 
the Holy Spirit) and that these gifts are now dedicated to the service 
of the Church.” And further: “It is a solemn, public declaration on 
God’s part, before the congregation, that the elected brother is law- 
fully called of God Himself, and is to be regarded by the congrega- 
tion as His servant; whereas the office-bearer himself is urged by 
this solemn exercise, to develop the gifts allotted to him, and to use 
them for the glory of God, and the welfare of the congregation/’ 1 11 

All Ministers present at the solemn occasion, according to Article 
4, should lay their hands on him who is being ordained. Why? In 
order to signify that they all, as special servants of God and in His 
name do testify alike that God has granted the special gifts of the 
Holy Spirit for the work of the ministry to the brother concerned, 
that he now dedicates these gifts for office to the ministry of the 
Word and to the Church calling him, and that the congregation is to 


1. cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkreckt, 1928, I, 410, and Bavinck: 

Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1918, IV, 418. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


33 


receive him as such; and furthermore that all Ministers by this 
solemn act may urge the brother to apply himself wholly to his 
glorious work. 

Of course, as all symbols, so also this symbol of the imposition of 
hands is meaningless in itself. He on whom we lay hands must be 
sincere m his heart and really called of God, if the symbol is to mean 
anything to him and to the Church. And both he and the Church must 
understand this beautiful symbol in order to appreciate it. 


ARTICLE V 

Ministers already in the Ministry of the Word , who are called 
to another congregation, shall likeunse be called in the afore- 
said manner by the Consistory and the Deacons , unth observ- 
ance of the regulations made for the purpose by the Consistory 
and of the general ecclesiastical ordinances for the eligibility 
of those who have served outside of the Christian Reformed 
Church and for the repeated calling of the same Minister during 
the same vacancy; further , with the advice of the Classis or 
of the Counselor, appointed by the Classis, and with the ap- 
proval of the Classis or of the Delegates appointed by the 
Classis, to whom the Ministers called show good ecclesiastical 
testimonials of doctrine and life, unth the approval of the mem- 
bers of the calling congregation, as stated in Article U; where- 
upon the Minister called shall be installed with appropriate 
stipulations and prayers agreeably to the Form for this purpose. 

THE CALLING OF THOSE ALREADY IN THE MINISTRY 

Article 4 and Article 5 are very much alike. They cover much the 
same territory and we shall therefore avoid much needless repetition. 
It will be noted that the matter of examination and the item concern- 
ing the imposition of hands provided for in Article 4 are omitted in 
Article 5. The examination conducted by one Classis is acknowledged 
by all the others, and therefore in the case of Ministers already in 
service, letters of testimony take the place of the examination of ad- 
mission. And the ceremony of the imposition of hands is omitted 
when a Minister is installed in a new charge, inasmuch as this solem- 
nity is for life, and should therefore not be repeated. 

1. The Calling of a Minister to another Congregation. 

When one is called and ordained as a Minister of a certain con- 
gregation, he is called and ordained for an unlimited period, or if 
you will, for life. This, however, does not mean that the tie between 
a Minister and a Church cannot be broken. Various circumstances, 
such as unfaithfulness in doctrine or life, may terminate the ministry 
of a Minister in and to a certain Church* Moreover, as the present 
Article specifies, the tie can also be severed by the acceptance of a 
call to another congregation. But no Church should call a Minister, 
united as a servant of God, to another congregation of Christ, rashly. 
And without weighty reasons no Minister should seek to break the 
tie, providentially existing between himself and his Church. Circum- 
stances or conditions often enumerated and which may be of sufficient 
weight for a Minister to seek release from the Church he is serving 


34 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


in order to accept a call to another Church, are the following: When 
a younger Minister receives a call to a larger or more responsible 
field; when an older Minister receives a call to a smaller and less 
strenuous field; when a Minister of average or ordinary ability, after 
several years of labor in his present Church, receives a call to another 
field; when constant conflict between a Minister and other consistory 
members hampers the work of the ministry; when past trouble has 
left a restricting atmosphere in a congregation; when the salary paid 
a Minister of a certain Church does not meet the needs of his family, 
and improvement cannot be made. 

Life is full of sin and its results. The evil one does not hesitate to 
enter the sacred domains of Christ’s Church here on earth to exert 
his baneful influence. Therefore we should not be surprised that evils 
easily attach themselves to the important work of filling a ministerial 
vacancy. Some of the evils to be avoided are these: Underhanded, 
perhaps insincere solicitations of a call; prodding a Minister for some 
favorable remark about the church building, parsonage, etc.; promis- 
ing to call without due warrant; calling without due consideration of 
the suitableness of the Minister; seeking merely a good public 
speaker, ignoring far more essential qualifications. 

In certain denominations the practice of soliciting a call is con- 
sidered proper. The Presbyterians, for instance, speak of “candidat- 
ing.” Both Candidates and Ministers already serving a certain 
Church will apply for the ministerial office of a vacant Church, if 
they so desire. 

Amongst us this is not done. Any solicitation of a call would be 
condemned most severely. Candidates sometimes write to vacant 
Churches seeking to preach for such Churches one or more Sundays. 
The same is true for Ministers without a charge but ready to con- 
sider a call. (For instance Ministers who were compelled to become 
emeriti because of impaired health, but sufficiently restored to resume 
the regular duties of the ministry.) But outright applications for calls 
are unknown among us. The Reformed Churches have always held 
that the Church is a very special institution among men, and that its 
offices are therefore also very special. God calls to office, though 
through the Church, and none should solicit for its offices, as we do 
for ordinary secular positions. The Church and its offices should never 
be put on par with ordinary organizations. In Heb. 5:4 the Word of 
God tells us: “And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when 
he is called of God, even as was Aaron.” Some have quoted I Tim. 
3:1 in defense of the practice of “candidatin^” or soliciting. This 
passage reads as follows: “Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh 
the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” But here the inner 
desire of the heart should be stressed. The passage does not speak 
of soliciting for office. One certainly may desire the holy office. One 
may hold himself in readiness and may prepare himself for service 
by diligent study of God’s Word and the work of an office-bearer. 
One may certainly bring the matter in prayer before God. But the 
call must come freely, and in the providence of God, unsolicited. 

The practice of solicitation of calls opens the door to a host of 
evils. If a Minister finds that a change is highly necessary, for ex- 
ample because of his health or that of a member of his family, or 
for any other reason which he judges to be urgent, then let his Con- 
sistory judge, and if the Consistory agrees, let this body seek the ad- 
vice of Classis in order that the Classis, if it concurs, may announce 
the brother’s predicament to all of our vacant Churches, either by 
letter directly, or through the Church papers. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


35 


Needless to say, great care should be exercised in the filling of a 
vacancy. There is a great variety of gifts and qualifications amongst 
those called to the ministry. And there is also a great variety as to 
the needs and conditions of the Churches. Not every cover fits every 
dish equally well. Only those should be called to the pulpits of vacant 
Churches of whom it may be expected that they somewhat fill the 
needs peculiar to the Church concerned. How should Churches and 
Consistories go about this all important work? In other words, how 
can vacant Churches know whom they should call ? In many instances 
they will know of a number of men who can all fill the needs of their 
Church as well as may be expected in an imperfect world. In that 
case the Consistory should not begin to look for extraordinary men. 
So for instance, a Church might call a man of whom it knows next 
to nothing, but concerning whom it hopes that he may be a power 
of attraction as a pulpiteer. 

If a Consistory is really at a loss, then what should it do? Let that 
Consistory (by means of a competent committee) inquire from trust- 
worthy, well qualified men, concerning gifts and abilities of men un- 
der consideration. In cases of this kind the counselor certainly should 
not be ignored. Furthermore, if possible, a committee of men well 
qualified to judge sermons should listen to Ministers under considera- 
tion, in their own Churches and report their impressions to the Con- 
sistory. Should a Consistory invite men under consideration to preach 
for their Church? As a rule, not. The Minister preaching under 
these conditions cannot well be his natural self. He is bound to feel 
that he is “on the spot.” He may well fall far below his natural self, 
but he may also far exceed his normal self. Let it also be remem- 
bered that a flashy, emotional speaker, who is really an inferior 
preacher of the Word and perchance a careless shepherd, may cap- 
tivate the majority of a congregation and thus secure a call, to the 
exclusion of worthier and better qualified men. Moreover, the con- 
gregation under these circumstances listens with a very critical ear, 
detecting every flaw, failing to note the good and the excellent, per- 
chance. The result may be that ultimately the choice of the Church 
falls on a comparatively unknown man, whose faults are not known, 
but who is actually inferior to those it has heard. And again neither 
Minister nor congregation can well worship the Lord as He ought to 
be worshipped at these “trial” services. The congregational services 
are sacred and no practice should be permitted which tends to de- 
grade their sacredness. 

We would therefore recommend, objective, impartial investigation 
and consideration of a Minister’s past record as expounder of the 
Word, teacher, and shepherd. This will mean a great deal more than 
one or two sermons preached on trial. 

2. Which “general ecclesiastical ordinances” does this article 
refer to? 

First of all it refers to Synodical rulings regarding the eligibility 
of Ministers not belonging to the Christian Reformed Church. The 
latest ruling regarding this matter was made by the Synod of 1928, 
and confirmed in 1934. Synod ruled, “that henceforth a nomination 
of a Consistory containing the name or names of Minister (s) of an- 
other denomination than the Christian Reformed Church, such nomi- 
nations must have the approbation not only of the Classis or of the 
counselor, but also of the nearest Delegates of Examination.” (cf. 
Acts. 1928, Art. 132, and Acts. 1934, Art. 145.) 

Those who are required to judge must assure themselves that the 


36 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Minister or Ministers concerned are desirable because of their train- 
ing, doctrinal position, piety, and character. And in case a Minister 
from another denomination is called, and he accepts the call, then a 
colloquium doctum is held with him before the Classis to which the 
calling Church belongs. “Colloquium doctum” is a handy Latin phrase 
which signifies, “a doctrinal conference or conversation.” A collo- 
quium doctum is therefore not a classical examination. It is meant 
to be an informal conference to assure the Classis that the brother 
concerned is doctrinally sound and well-informed. At this conference 
the Synodical Delegates for Examination are also present as repre- 
sentatives of all the Churches. 

As Churches we are not at all exclusive in the evil sense of the 
word. We bid a hearty welcome to anyone who is whole-heartedly in 
agreement with our position. But we are, as appears from the fore- 
going, cautious. And rightly so. If we have good reasons for our 
continual separate existence (and of this none who knows and appre- 
ciates the facts aright can doubt), then it is no more than good sense 
and clear duty to be very careful regarding the admittance of Min- 
isters from other denominations. The more so when doctrinal laxity 
and lack of distinctive. Biblical Christianity is becoming more popular 
in many circles as the years go by. 

There is another Synodical ruling which should be mentioned in 
this connection. It refers to the calling of the same Ministers for the 
same vacancy within a year. It reads as follows: “A second call to 
the same Minister during the same vacancy may not be extended 
within a year without the advice of Classis.” (Acts 1906, Art. 35.) 
This is no doubt a good ruling. 

When a Minister after prayerful, conscientious consideration has 
declined a call, such a decision should be regarded as final, and ac- 
cording to God’s will. To repeat the call in less than a year’s time 
would be out of keeping with the solemnity of the whole situation. 
Yet definite circumstances which compelled a Minister to decline a 
call may alter suddenly, so that the Minister would be ready to accept 
the call. If a Consistory hears of these altered circumstances and still 
desires the brother, then the way should be open for the extension of 
a second call. The Synodical ruling leaves room for this. 

There are also other rulings which our Synods have adopted and 
which should be mentioned here. Thus Synod of 1916 ruled that 
“Consistories shall not nominate Ministers who have served their 
present Church for less than two years, unless special weighty rea- 
sons exist; and a counselor who approves of such a nominee must 
give account of his reasons to Classis.” (Acts 1916, Art. 30.) Strictly 
speaking, there is no time requirement. Any Minister, including the 
theological professors at our seminary and other Ministers who have 
been appointed to special positions, any Minister in good standing, is 
eligible to a call. Theoretically everyone of our Ministers is eligible 
to a call at all times, even when he has just been installed in a new 
charge. This concerns the inherent right of every Church. But ex- 
perience has taught us that it is good to have some general rule. 
Therefore Synod of 1916 ruled as it did. This is a good rule. Thus 
far all of our Consistories have taken due note of it. Generally speak- 
ing, very short pastorates are not to the welfare of the Churches. 
And yet there are exceptions. But the rule leaves ample room for 
these exceptions. 

Another Synodical ruling passed in 1884, states: “If a Minister 
serves a Church only a year, and the moving expenses have exceeded 
fifty dollars, the calling Church shall refund to the Church he leaves, 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


37 


three-fourths of the^ expenses; if he serves only two years, one-half; 
if three years, one-fourth of the moving expenses. This decision 
shall be incorporated in the letter of call.” (Acts 1884, Art. 52; Acts 
1890, Art. 63.) 

Synod of 1926 decided that when a Minister leaves one Church for 
another, his new Church becomes responsible for his salary from the 
day that he preached his farewell sermon in the Church he left, un- 
less other arrangements are made. This is no doubt a fair arrange- 
ment. But it should not be necessary for a Synod to regulate all 
these details. We should avoid rule upon rule, and precept upon 
precept. Multiplicity of rules tends to exert an unwholesome ham- 
pering effect on our ecclesiastical life. And Synod as a rule should 
spend its valuable time considering major matters, matters touching 
the maintenance and development of spiritual life and should cultivate 
true appreciation for our Reformed principles. 

3. Advice and approval of Classis. 

The advice of Classis is prescribed in Article 5, just as in Article 

4, and for the same reasons. (See our discussion under Art. 4, first 
section.) Article 4, concerning itself with the calling and induction 
into office of those who have not previously served, provides for 
classical examinations. Article 5 regulating the calling of men al- 
ready in the ministry, omits the provision for examinations, but pro- 
vides for “the approval of the Classis or of the Delegates appointed 
by the Classis.” This Classical approbation is here demanded for rea- 
sons already considered. Who are the “Delegates appointed by the 
Classis”? Whenever possible Classis should give or withhold its ap- 
probation of a call accepted directly. Whatever the assemblies (Con- 
sistories, Classes, Synods) can do themselves they should never dele- 
gate to committees. To avoid abuse and assumption of power, that 
is, to safeguard true presbyterianism and sound church government. 
But sometimes a Minister accepts a call, just after Classis has met. 
It would entail hardships if the calling Church would have to wait 
for Classis to meet again. Therefore the Church Order permits ap- 
probation by means of delegates. In every Classis so-called “Classical 
Committees” have been charged to do this work. Classical committees 
are standing committees, usually consisting of three Ministers, who 
are charged to do certain labors, performed by Classis directly if in 
session. Classical Committees with vague and general charges find 
no support in our Church Order. It would be wiser and safer for 
Classes to appointed committees as occasion requires. These com- 
mittees should receive special, well defined instructions. At any 
rate, every Classis should stipulate very clearly just what the duties 
and powers of its classical committees are. But it is noteworthy that 
originally Article 5 did not permit approbation of calls through a 
committee. Even today the Church Order redaction of the Reformed 
Churches of the Netherlands does not allow for approbation of calls 
through committees. The Synod of 1905 of these Churches, assigned 
this task to two neighboring Churches. These two neighboring 
Churches notify all the other Churches of Classis that the question 
of approving a certain call (accepted) will be decided upon at a cer- 
tain place, day, and hour. All the Churches of the Classis are invited 
to be present. As a rule of course, no objections are entertained and 
the two Consistones merely aDprove of the call and the installation, 
etc., for the whole Classis. It cannot be denied that our way of work- 
ing is much simpler. But neither can it be denied that the method of 


38 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the Holland Churches is safer. Our fathers learned by experience 
that hierarchical dominance easily creeps in through standing com- 
mittees and so-called Church Boards. And it is evident that whenever 
authority must be delegated it is more in harmony with Reformed 
Church polity, to delegate such authority to minor assemblies, (Con- 
sistories and Classes) than to boards or committees. And doubtless 
usurpation of power and unwarranted influence is thus rendered less 
probable. 

Which documents must be present at a Classis which is asked to 
approve a call accepted? Jansen enumerates five, namely these: 

a. The letter of call, with the original letter of acceptance, so that 
Classis may be sure that no undesirable or sinful restrictions have 
been made. 

b. A testimony from the Consistory of the Church which the Minister 
has served declaring that said Consistory has agreed to the accep- 
tance of the call, and has dismissed him as Minister. Without this 
official release and dismissal no other Church may receive him. (cf. 
Art. 10, Church Order.) 

c. Membership j^rtificate regarding doctrine and life (cf. Art. 5, Church 
Order) testifying that the departing Minister is sound in both doc- 
trine and life. 

d. Proof of regular dismissal from the Classis in which he served. 
No Church being permitted to receive him unless he has been dis- 
missed also by his Classis. (cf. Art. 10, Church Order.) 

e. A testimony from the Consistory of the calling Church that the call 
has been duly submitted for approbation to the whole congregation 
(cf. Art. 5, Church Order) and that no valid objections have been 
registered against the brother’s ordination. (If objections were 
registered, but overruled by the Consistory the objector can of 
course always appeal to Classis, and if he so desires to Synod. )1 

4. The installation. 

The Church of Rome does transfer its offices from one congregation 
to another, but never re-installs them. The prerogatives and duties 
of an ecclesiastical officer according to Rome, are indestructible. But 
according to the Reformed conception the offices are all local in char- 
acter. One is an Elder or Deacon of a local Church of a certain con- 
gregation, never of Churches in general or of a whole denomination. 
Hence also Ministers are called by and ordained by local Churches. 
Consequently when a Minister assumes the ministerial office in an- 
other congregation, re-installation is in order. Only the ceremony of 
the imposition of hands, as we have noted previously, is not repeated. 


ARTICLE VI 

No Minister shall be at liberty to serve in institutions of 
mercy or otherwise , unless he be “previously admitted in accord- 
ance with the preceding articles, and he shall, no less than 
others , be subject to the Church Order . 

MINISTERS SERVING INSTITUTIONS OF MERCY, ETC. 

1. The burden and intent of Article 6. 

Article 6 provides that no Minister shall have the right to accept 
an appointment as spiritual worker in an institution of mercy, or a 
like institution, unless he has actually been called to this work, just 


1. Jansen: Korte Verklaring van de Kerkenordening, 1923, p. 29. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


39 


as a Minister is called to the Ministry of a congregation. In other 
words, whether a Minister has an ordinary sphere of labor (Minister 
of a local Church), or an extraordinary sphere of labor (such as spir- 
itual worker in a hospital) he must be called as stipulated in Articles 
4 and 5 of the Church Order. 

It is implied in Article 6 that he who accepts an appointment to 
do ministerial work in some Christian institution without a call ac- 
cording to Articles 4 and 5 of the Church Order, thereby forfeits his 
office. And no one can lay claim to the office of the ministry just be- 
cause he does fninisterial work, unless he has first been lawfully 
called and charged. Furthermore, it is specifically stipulated that 
Ministers who have extraordinary charges and fields of labor must 
submit themselves in all things to the Church Order. What holds for 
regular Ministers holds for them as well. In this connection it is to 
be noted that Synod of 1918 decided that: “Spiritual advisors for in- 
stitutions shall be called by a neighboring Church in consultation with 
the respective Board.” (cf. Acts 1918, Art. 37.) 

A decade later the Synod ruled as follows: “Synod rules that the 
status of a Minister, who labors officially in non-ecclesiastical insti- 
tutions of charity is covered by Article 6 of the Church Order; that 
all non-official work performed for such institutions, as for instance, 
the collection of funds or solicitation of membership, whether the 
Minister be in active service or retired, is covered by Article 12 of 
the Church Order and is in conflict with “being bound to the service 
of the Church for life,” and not in harmony with Article 13 nor Ar- 
ticle 14.” (cf. Acts, 1928, Art. 37.) 

2. General principles basic to Article 6. 

In the first place, the Churches can recognize only one kind of Min- 
isters of the Gospel. Not two kinds, one of which is charged and 
called by the Churches, and the other appointed by some organization 
or group of individuals. The Church can recognize only those as Min- 
isters of the Gospel who have been lawfully called and charged by 
the Church of Jesus Christ, and w’ho also live and work in agreement 
with, and submission to the Church Order. All this for the simple 
reason that the Bible knows only of one kind of Ministers; namely, 
those who have been lawfully called to office. 

Secondly, even as one cannot be an Elder or Deacon without being 
Elder or Deacon of a particular local Church, so one cannot be a 
Minister without being such of a particular local Church, though one’s 
charge as a Minister may be very special. 

3. Ecclesiastical position of Ministers serving as hospital 
pastors, etc. 

According to the present article, when an institution desires the 
full-time services of one of our Ministers that institution should go 
to a neighboring Church and ask the Consistory of that Church to 
call a Minister for the work they have in mind. If the Church asked 
is satisfied with the considerations and needs presented and the stipu- 
lations promised, it can proceed with the calling. And this procedure, 
should be more than a mere formality. The regular, most common 
way would, of course, be that the Consistory nominate and that the 
congregation elect. However, in most instances the management of 
an institution might prefer to select a Minister. In that case the 
Consistory, after due consideration, could approve of the institution’s 
nominee and then announce to the congregation that the brother will 
be called unless valid objections are registered with the Consistory. 


40 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Even the decision to call a Minister for the extraordinary duties in 
question, should certainly be submitted to the congregation for its 
approval. It is the Church that calls, though through those already 
in office, and under their direction, and therefore the Church must 
also decide to call. The Consistory can call a congregational meeting 
for this matter, or in many instances it may be sufficient to announce 
to the congregation that in answer to a request received, the Con- 
sistory is minded to call an extra Minister to labor in the institution 
indicated, and that all members who have any valid objections to the 
proposed plan, are requested to report at the next Consistory meeting. 

It should also be definitely understood that by requesting a Con- 
sistory to place a Minister in their institution, the authorities con- 
cerned are placing the work of the Minister under supervision of that 
Church. This does not mean that the Consistory would arrange the 
schedule of work to be done by the Minister, the hours, etc., for the 
institution. Adequate stipulations regarding formal matters should 
be made at the time when the agreement between the institution and 
the calling Church is made, and the institution should certainly be 
permitted at all times to manage its own affairs. But the Consistory 
very definitely stands responsible for the character and nature of the 
Minister’s work, and should exercise supervision. 

Furthermore, a Minister who accepts a call as now under discus- 
sion, should be considered a member of the calling Church and Con- 
sistory, though his charge would be very special and different from 
the charge of the regular congregational Minister. So, for instance, 
a hospital pastor is rightfully a member of the Consistory which 
called him. And as a member of the Consistory he should be allowed 
his full rights. For example: It is his right and duty to preside at 
Consistory meetings when his turn comes (Art. 17) and to go to 
Classis, either as delegate or as advisory member (Art. 42). And as 
far as his special task permits he is subject to Consistory work. For 
Article 6 clearly provides that “no less than others” he shall be “sub- 
ject to the Church Order.” In every case a definite understanding 
should be reached at the time a special call, according to Article 6, 
is about to be accepted. And, of course, every case should be con- 
sidered and acted upon as circumstances require. We have simply 
indicated what the Church Order stipulates regarding extraordinary 
pastorates in general. But in writing up any agreement or schedule, 
the Church Order should not be ignored and arbitrarily suspended. 
Today we have a number of Ministers doing extraordinary ministerial 
work who have no close contacts with any Consistory and cannot even 
be delegated to our major assemblies. They form a class of Ministers 
shorn of certain rights and duties which are definitely theirs. We are 
convinced that this is contrary to the best interests of the Churches 
and the Ministers concerned. To mention no more, the work of these 
Ministers is not controlled as the work of other Ministers is. 

4. Does this article also govern the ecclesiastical position of Ministers 
who are teachers of Reformed doctrine or Bible history in our 
high schools and colleges? 

We believe that it does. Not that this matter was in the minds of 
our fathers when this article was first framed. But inasmuch as the 
teaching of the subjects referred to is very definitely ministerial work, 
just as much so as the pastoral work of a hospital pastor, and as this 
article plainly states: “No Minister shall be at liberty to serve in in- 
stitutions of mercy or otherwise ”, and inasmuch as the intent 

of the article is not to regulate the ecclesiastical position of one par- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


41 


ticular class of extraordinary Ministers, but rather the ecclesiastical 
position of extraordinary Ministers in general, therefore we believe 
that Article 6 should be applied to Ministers who act as Bible teachers. 


ARTICLE VII 

No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word , without 
his being stationed in a particular place , except he be sent to do 
church extension work. 

DEFINITE FIELDS OF LABOR. 

1. The historical origin of this article. 

Article 7 finds its origin in the fact that the Reformation Churches 
had to guard themselves against certain self-appointed itinerant 
preachers. Many of these refused to be connected ministerially with 
any local Church. They wanted to travel from place to place as they 
saw fit. They appealed the example of the Apostles and evangelists, 
forgetting and ignoring the fact, that the Apostles and their helpers, 
the evangelists, occupied a special temporary office being ordained 
of God for the establishment of the New Testament Church; forget- 
ting and ignoring also that Acts 13:1-4 tells us very definitely that 
great men like Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the Church of 
Antioch. The Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled that preachers without fixed 
charges should submit themselves to a Classis for examination. 
Then if they received a call they could be properly installed to labor 
in the Church calling them. And the Synod of 1578, (also Dort) 
definitely declared itself against all itinerant preaching as in vogue 
at that time. The Synod of Middelbuxg, 1581, decreed that none 
should be permitted to go from place to place, having no fixed charge, 
without the consent and authority of Synod or Classis. This Synod 
therefore judged that itinerant preaching might be necessary and ad- 
visable, but no one should decide this question for himself; not even 
a local Church should act for and by itself, but Synod or Classi3 
should judge whether or not work of this type is necessary. And the 
Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, decided that work of this kind should 
be done amongst Churches which, due to persecution, had no Minis- 
ters, and perhaps even lost their Consistories, and often lived in 
“dispersion”, away from home. “Gemeenten onder het kruis,” they 
were called, i.e. Cross-bearing Churches. Furthermore this Synod 
specified that the work of gathering Churches in general required 
traveling Ministers. Doubtless our fathers were thinking in this con- 
nection of mission work amongst those still under the sway of Rome. 

2. The significance of the Article. 

The original of Artiqle 7 was written in 1581 by the Synod of Mid- 
delburg. “No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word, except 
he be stationed in a Church which he shall serve.” Article 7 there- 
fore clearly enunciates this principle that the call to the ministry 
always implies a definite connection with the calling Church. The lo- 
cal Church calls (Art. 4, 5) and that for labors within its own confines. 

Article 7 thus placed the Churches in opposition, first of all, to the 
Roman Church which ordains men in general, without uniting them 
to a local Church. It also condemns the mode of procedure followed 
by the Churches of the province of Friesland in former years. The 
Friesian Churches ordained men at their Synodical or Classical gath- 


42 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


erings, without a call from a local Church. The fallacy of this pro- 
cedure was clearly seen by the other Churches and the Friesian 
Churches in due season conformed themselves to the true Reformed 
principles regarding this matter. The offices in the Church are spe- 
cific, not general. Recall that one cannot be an Elder or Deacon ex- 
cept he be Elder or Deacon of a local Church. The same holds for 
the ministerial office. Without the locally instituted or organized 
Church the offices simply do not exist. Therefore Article 7 specifies 
'“No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word, without his 
being stationed in a particular place.” 

3. The exception. 

But there is an exception. The assemblies at which our Church 
Order was written felt that itinerant preachers, i.e., Ministers who 
would devote all their time to home mission work or evangelization 
work, might be very necessary. And so the clause “except he be sent 
to gather Churches here and there” was added. This original reading 
of the exceptive clause of Article 7 is somewhat broader than our 
present reading. The present reading speaks only of Church exten- 
sion work, which ordinarily refers only to “home missions;” i.e., the 
organization of new Churches amongst those already believers and 
in most instances members of some Christian Reformed Church, but 
living in communities where no Church of ours is found. The original 
reading of the clause makes it applicable to all types of mission work. 
The present reading should therefore be allowed a broad interpreta- 
tion. 

Note well that the exceptive clause does not alter the fact that a 
Minister is called by a Church, and not by Classis or Synod. The ex- 
ceptive clause concerns itself only with the field or sphere of labor 
of Missionary Ministers, not with their calling or ordination. The 
calling and ordination to the ministry has been regulated in Article 
4 and Article 5. What these articles contain stands. Article 7 does 
not alter these matters in the least. It is well to note the significance 
of the articles just preceding the present, in order to see the con- 
nection and train of thought. Article 3 specifies that none shall be 
permitted to preach unless he be lawfully called. (Even as no one 
can go as ambassador from our United States to a foreign land un- 
less he be lawfully called or appointed.) Articles 4 and 5 specify that 
this calling to the ministry is exercised by the local Church, albeit 
wfith the guidance of the Consistory. Article 6 adds that this one 
and only mode of calling also holds for Ministers laboring in insti- 
tutions of mercy, etc. And then Article 7 specifies still further that 
a call to the ministry is always for a definite field of labor, except 
when a Minister be called for mission work. Hence the exceptive 
clause in Article 7 does not imply that Missionary Ministers can be 
called and ordained and installed by Classes or Synods. 

In this connection it may be well to warn against an erroneous ap- 
proach to the Church Order. When you take a passage of God’s 
Word and begin to explain it without any consideration for the rest 
of the chapter, you are almost sure to make the Bible say what it 
does not say. The Bible is a unit. When you explain a passage you 
must do so in the light of the chapter and the book in which it is 
found. In fact, nothing of what God has said may be ignored. Only 
when a particular passage is explained in the light of the whole 
Word can you exnect a correct interpretation. So it is to a certain 
extent with our Church Order. The Church Order is a unit. It is not 
a systematic presentation of Reformed Church polity, but is expres- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


43 


sive of fundamental principles pertaining to Church government. And 
these principles, fundamental to the various articles of the Church 
Order, may not be ignored when you begin to interpret individual 
articles. If you do, you will make the Church Order say what it 
does not mean to say. And you will even make it contradict itself 
again and again. The result will be mistaken notions and a sorry 
confusion, and in practice you will consequently blunder again and 
again. 

From our interpretation of Article 7 it follows that we cannot 
agree with our Synod of 1930, which held that the “calling and send- 
ing, as also the regulation of the labors, of ordained Missionaries is 
the task and the right of the Consistory, Classis, or Synod engaging 
in that particular mission activity.” (Acts 1930, p. 143.) We see no 
chance of substantiating this pronouncement with the Church Order. 
We are convinced that Articles 4, 5, and 7 gainsay this deliverance. 

Does this mean that more than one Church cannot co-operate in 
calling and sending Missionaries? Not at all. Two or more Churches 
may enter into close and definitely stipulated co-operation for the 
selection and calling of a Missionary. But the provisions of Articles 
4, 5, and 7 should not be brushed aside. One Church must always 
be designated as the executer for all the rest. To this Church, the 
brother called will stand officially responsible. And this Church also 
will initiate disciplinary action in case the Missionary Minister should 
become delinquent. When matters are arranged thus, in harmony 
with the rules of our Church Order, confusion and irregularity will 
be avoided. 

So also a Classis cannot call and ordain, though it can carry on 
mission work as a Classis. But one of the Churches must again be 
appointed as executer for all the Churches of the Classis. And Synod 
of 1936 certainly did the right thing when it provided in the new 
home mission order, that although Synod (i.e., all the Churches of 
our denomination) may select Missionaries, the actual work of elec- 
tion, ordination or installation, shall be delegated to the local 
Churches appointed for this purpose. With these local Churches the 
Missionaries then stand in close and actual relationship as executers 
for all the Churches concerned. This method of procedure is in har- 
mony with our Church Order, and the basic principles of our Reformed 
Church polity. In practice this method of procedure will work out 
too. For instance, if a Classis or Synod would actually call and or- 
dain, who could act with real responsibility and authority if an emer- 
gency should arise while these assemblies are not in session? 


ARTICLE VIII 

Persons who have not pursued the regular course of study in 
preparation for the Ministry of the Word, and have therefore 
not been declared eligible according to Article U, shall not be 
admitted to the Ministry unless there is assurance of their ex- 
ceptional gifts, godliness, humility, modesty, common sense and 
discretion, as also gifts of public address. When such persons 
present themselves for the Ministry, the Classis (if the [ particu- 
lar ] Synod approve) shall first examine them, and further deal 
with them as it shall deem edifying, according to the general 
regulations of the Churches. 


44 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ADMITTANCE TO THE MINISTRY OF THOSE WHO LACK 
SPECIAL PREPARATION. 

1. Why is it the position of our Churches that its Ministers shall be 
seminary graduates? 

It is the rule of our Churches that only those who have prepared 
themselves adequately by completing a satisfactory seminary course, 
shall be admitted to its ministry. This rule is not embodied into a sep- 
arate article but is implied in Article 8. Admittedly, a good training 
at a good theological school does not necessarily make a good Minister. 
There are certain qualifications for the sacred ministry which the best 
theological school can never give. Such are those enumerated in this 
article, namely: godliness, humility, modesty, common sense, and dis- 
cretion. And even the gift of public address is not merely a matter of 
training. True it is, that training may foster and greatly develop 
these gifts of God, but in and by itself, a theological course will make 
no one godly, humble, modest, etc. 

It is this latter truth which our fathers realized full well. They did 
not agree with certain mystical groups, such as Quakers, Dunkers, 
Darbyites, and many Anabaptists, who taught that all scholastic train- 
ing for the Ministry of the Word was unnecessary and even cumber- 
some in many cases. Some said that the Holy Spirit did not need 
scholastic learning for the accomplishment of His purposes. (Who of 
us would care to deny this claim in the abstract? But is that the 
point ? ) Others even said that learning was trash which hindered the 
Spirit in His work. 

But our fathers knew better. They realized that without the gifts 
of God and the calling of God mere school training is vain. But they 
also realized that a knowledge of the language which God used when 
He gave the Holy Scriptures by inspiration, was, to say the least, 
highly desirable. Furthermore, they knew that a thorough acquaint- 
ance with the Sacred Scriptures, and a broad knowledge of human 
history, ideals and tendencies, and a well disciplined intellect were all 
requisites for good ministerial work. They were not unmindful of the 
fact that Jesus virtually gave His disciples a three year training 
course before He sent them out as Apostles. And that in the provi- 
dence of God, Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel, and had a very 
thorough general training before God called him for his great task. 

Neither did our forbears feel free to ignore Paul’s injunction to 
Timothy: “And the things which thou hast heard from me among 
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be 
able to teach others also.” (II Tim. 2:2.) 

2. Why do our Churches have the ruling of Article 8? 

When times are extraordinary for the Church of God, scarcity of 
fully prepared Ministers is apt to occur. So, for example, at the time 
of the Reformation there was a crying need for Ministers. Many con- 
gregations were without regular Ministers year after year. In many 
communities the Church remained unorganized for want of leadership. 
Thus also when the Reformed Churches of Holland left the corrupted 
State Church a half century ago, there was a great need for Minis- 
ters. At such times the Churches should be at liberty to ordain of 
their most worthy and able men, though they lack a thorough and 
systematic training. For as we have noted, scholastic training for 
the ministry is highly desirable, but not indispensable. 

In the second place: In His sovereign good pleasure God sometimes 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


45 


endows some of His children with extraordinary gifts and qualifica- 
tions for the ministry, though they have not followed a prescribed 
course and are therefore deficient in scholastic training. When God 
qualifies a man for the ministry by endowing him with excellent and 
extraordinary gifts for that office, then to be sure the Church of Christ 
is m duty bound to recognize this fact with appreciation. The rule is 
and should ever remain to be: Those that feel called to the ministry 
must follow the prescribed course of study. But at the same time the 
door must ever remain open for such as God graciously qualifies for 
service without special training. 

3. The exceptional gifts of Article 8. 

Article 8 speaks of “exceptional gifts, godliness, humility, modesty, 
common sense, and discretion.” The present redaction of the Church 
Order of the Reformed Churches of Holland, corresponds to our read- 
ing. However, the original Latin text of the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
would require that we place a colon (:) after the expression “excep- 
tional gifts.” The correct interpretation of this Article therefore re- 
quires that we look upon the expression, “godliness, humility, modesty, 
common sense and discretion,” as a specific enumeration of what is 
meant by “exceptional gifts.” That is to say, he who would come 
under the rule of Article 8, must excel in godliness, humility, modesty, 
common sense and discretion. He must not only have all these char- 
acteristics, but he must be exceptionally gifted with respect to them. 

Several authorities have called attention to the incorrect punctuation 
of our present day redactions of Article 8 on this score. Jansen, 
Bouwman, H. H. Kuyper and Heyns all agree with the interpretation 
as just indicated. 

The first exceptional gift mentioned is godliness. The Latin expres- 
sion is “pietas,” i. e. one who is pious, godly, moved by a reverence for 
God, filled with consecration to God. This, to be sure, is the primary 
requisite. Next, humility, from the Latin original “humilitas,” is men- 
tioned. Godliness must be accompanied by humbleness of heart. One 
who is exceptionally gifted stands in danger of becoming proud in 
word and deed. He is also in danger of over-estimating his gifts and 
abilities. Lack of humility would disqualify one for the ministry, 
though he might be exceptionally gifted otherwise. Next modesty is 
enumerated. The Latin word is “modestia,” which really indicates 
morality. Doubtless our Dutch translation “zedigheid,” is to be pre- 
ferred above our English “modesty.” The concept “modesty” is 
closely akin to humility, the previous characteristic. However in the 
original modestia seems to refer to a well-balanced, well-controlled 
life, a life strictly moral. Then follows common sense. In Dutch we 
find “goed verstand,” and in Latin “excelleus ingenium.” Just why 
our English translation has rendered these expressions “common sense” 
is not clear. The present Dutch, as well as the Latin original cer- 
tainly refers to intellectual ability. Doubtless we should think in this 
connection of keenness of intellect which is so essential for the correct 
interpretation of Holy Writ. As our reading now stands, this very 
essential qualification for all Ministers is not mentioned in Article 8. 
Perhaps our translators, and Synod of 1920 which ratified this transla- 
tion, felt that the expression “exceptional gifts” would refer to godli- 
ness, modesty, etc., but to other gifts not mentioned by name. And in 
that case one would, under the circumstances, think first of all of in- 
tellectual gifts. But as we have said, the original Latin text simply 
does not leave room for this interpretation. Furthermore, discretion is 
mentioned. The Latin here is “prudentia,” and the Dutch “discretie.” 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


This word refers to clarity and soundness of judgment, i. e. the ability 
to judge between true and false, right and wrong. Finally the enumer- 
ation closes with “gifts of public address.” Latin: “eloquentia;” 
Dutch: “gaven van welsprekendheid.” These original expressions do 
not signify that the applicant must be eloquent of speech as we now 
understand this term. But he must be able to express himself well in 
public address. He must be able to address people with ease, clarity, 
and in orderly fashion, without serious faults. 

4. The procedure to be followed for admittance to the Ministry ac- 
cording to Article 8. * 

The last sentence of Article 8 states in a general way how an 
aspirant to the ministry under this article should proceed. The “gen- 
eral regulations” of which the very last clause speaks were officially 
adopted by the Synod of 1922. These regulations specify in greater 
detail what the exact mode of procedure should be. 

We reproduce these rulings as rendered by Stuart and Hoeksema. 
(Rules of Order, pp. 24, 25). 

(1) If anyone desires to be admitted to the Ministry of the Word 
according to Article 8, he must apply to his Consistory and 
after that to his Classis. This Classis, in conjunction with 
the Delegates for Examination of three adjacent Classes, first 
examines the written credentials of the Consistory concerning 
the required qualifications stated in Article 8 and subsequent- 
ly itself investigates in this respect. If the preliminary judg- 
ment is favorable, he shall be given the right to speak a word 
of edification for a limited time in the vacant churches of his 
Classis. He must also speak a few times in the non-vacant 
Churches in the presence of the respective Ministers of these 
churches. Classis shall regulate these appointments in con- 
junction with the Consistories of those churches. Classis de- 
termines the length of this period of probation. 

(2) At the close of the period of probation the Classis, in conjunc- 
tion with the said Delegates for Examination, takes a final 
decision regarding the presence of exceptional gifts. If the 
decision is in the affirmative, then the Classis shall take a 
peremptory examination in the following branches: 

a) Exegesis of Old and New Testaments; 

b) Bible History; 

c) Dogmatics; 

d) General and American Church History. 

(3) In case of favorable issue, he is declared eligible to a call. 

(4) The examination for ordination follows later according to ex- 
isting rules, except the classical languages. Acts 1922, Art. 
37, X. (Agendum 1920, pages 26, 27.) 

It will be noted that one who would become a Minister according to 
Article 8 must have a knowledge of the facts far above the average, 
even though he has never attended high school, college, or seminary. 

We should consider it a favor of God when He from time to time 
qualifies certain brethren for the ministry through the abundant in- 
dwelling and blessings of the Holy Spirit, without the ordinary course 
of study. 

On the other hand, let us ever appreciate a sound and thorough 
theological training, and let us ever hold in high esteem scholastic at- 
tainment and a thorough preparation for the ministry. 

And let us likewise remember that even for Ministers so exception- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


47 


ally gifted that they were admitted to the ministry without having 
completed a theological course, a theological training would not have 
been an item of luxury. For they will always be somewhat handi- 
capped for lack of it, and would be abler workers in God's vineyard, 
had they enjoyed its advantages. 


ARTICLE IX 

Preachers without fixed charge, or others who have left some 
sect, shcUl not be admitted to the Ministry in the Church until 
they have been decla/red eligible, after careful examination, by 
the Classis, with the approval of Synod . 

ADMITTING CHURCH-LESS PREACHERS OR LEADERS 
OF SECTARIAN GROUPS 

1. The historical background of this article. 

In the unrevised Church Order of Dort Article 9 reads as follows: 
“Novices, priests, monks, and others that have left some sect, shall not 
be admitted to the service of the Church (as Ministers) except with 
great carefulness and due consideration (groote zorgvuldigheid en 
voorzichtigheid), and after they have been on probation for some 
time.” 

The word “novices” with which this reading of Article 9 opens is 
taken from I Tim. 3:6. The Apostle enumerating the required quali- 
ties for a bishop, says, “Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall 
into condemnation of the devil.” Our forebears apply this expression 
in this connection to such as recently turned their backs upon the 
Church of Rome, or upon the Anabaptist groups. 

At the beginning of the Reformation it took real courage and con- 
viction to leave the Church of Rome. But after the storm of perse- 
cution began to subside, and when the Reformed Churches of Holland 
received official recognition of the government, many insincere and un- 
worthy individuals having served in the degenerate Church of Rome, 
sought the ministry in the Reformation Churches. Consequently, the 
Churches had to exercise the maximum of care regarding these nu- 
merous applicants. The Synod of Dort, 1574, already decided: “Die 
monniken ofte Papen geweest zijn, en zich tot de Kerkendienst be- 
geeren te begeven, sal men niet toelaten dan van de Classe geexami- 
neert zynde. . .” (Art. 20.) The element of classical examination is 
not specifically mentioned in the redaction of 1618-19, but has been 
re-incorporated in our reading of 1914. 

The priests who sought admittance to the Reformed Churches as 
Ministers were as a rule “vagabond priests,” priests who were indeed 
ordained to office but who had no fixed charge. They preached and 
baptized, etc., so Voetius informs us, 1 wherever opportunity offered it- 
self. Their work fell largely amongst migratory groups such as fish- 
ermen, hunters, traveling small-tradesmen, inland boatsmen, etc. The 
Reformed Church acknowledged the baptism administered by these 
vagabond priests inasmuch as they held office in the Church of Rome. 
(Our fathers looked uoon the Roman Church as being fearfully cor- 


1. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. Ill, 660. cf. Bouwman: Qereformeercl Kerkrecht, 
1928. I. 441. 


48 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


rupt, deformed, teaching and practicing God-dishonoring and un- 
Biblical doctrine, but they did not deny that at heart it was a mani- 
festation and representation of the body of Christ. Consequently, 
they acknowledged the baptism administered by those duly appointed 
by the Church of Rome.) 

Monks belong neither to the clergy, nor to the laity with Rome. 
They form a class of men which are under certain strict vows, pro- 
moting sanctity and service, so they hold. Monks were therefore 
not ordained to office by Rome and consequently the Reformation 
Churches did not acknowledge Baptism administered by them. 

Inasmuch as they were often men of theological learning, they could 
be admitted to the ministry as far as their knowledge was concerned. 
But the Churches had to exercise the utmost care with them. Many 
were insincere and unworthy. Those that left the Anabaptists also 
required a great deal of caution. The Anabaptists believed neither in 
regular office-bearers nor in special training for the work of the min- 
istry. Leadership in their service was open to all. Some of their 
leaders could not even read or write. Consequently, the Anabaptists, 
leaders and followers, were extremely weak in Scriptural under- 
standing; and erroneous, subjective conceptions were common. It 
stands to reason that the Churches had to use much discretion and 
care in the admittance of this class of applicants to the ministry. 

But times and circumstances have changed. The applicants with 
which Article 9 in its original form concerned itself, are virtually non- 
existent today. However our Churches in the United States of 
America did meet with problems regarding the admission to the min- 
istry, kindred to those of former centuries and which were governed 
by Article 9. Consequently, our Synod of 1914 revised this article to 
cover the new situation. 

2. To which classes of applicants our present redaction of Article 9 
refers. 

In the first place Article 9 speaks of “preachers without fixed 
charge." This phrase refers to Ministers, not of the Christian Re- 
formed denomination, but of some other Reformed denomination, who 
for some reason are no longer serving their congregation and who seek 
to enter our pulpits and are desirous of obtaining a call from one of 
our Churches. 

It has happened in the past that a Minister would make his appear- 
ance in our midst, uninvited and unlooked for, (as a rule hailing from 
the Netherlands) and would begin to work for a call. With fluency of 
speech and pleasant manners the favor of more than one vacant 
Church would be gained. Yet upon close investigation by counselors 
or Classes, it sometimes appeared that the man in question was not 
at all desirable. But not all vacant Churches would always believe 
the findings of those who investigated, and trouble, even permanent 
division would result, (cf. the Van der Valk episode of a few decades 
ago.) 

The second type of applicants for the ministry in our Churches re- 
ferred to in Article 9, are designated as “others who have left some 
sect." This clause refers to such as have left some group or sect, and 
claim that they have changed their views and have forsaken their 
errors and now wish to be admitted to the ministry of our Churches. 
In many cases, however, sad to say, these have proved to be insincere. 
The men concerned were only looking for a livelihood it seems. 

And yet an occasional one of these two classes of applicants may be 
worthy. Now Article 9 points the way to worthy applicants of these 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


49 

types. And, above all, it constitutes a safe-guard for the Churches 
against unworthy individuals. 

3. How can applicants referred to in Article 9 be admitted to tlie 
ministry in our Churches? 

Such applicants must apply to a Classis of our Churches, and ask 
the Classis to declare him eligible for a call. This, however, no Clas- 
sis may do unless it has first made a careful investigation. This care- 
ful investigation includes more than an examination of certain cre- 
dentials which the applicant may carry with him, for these may be 
spurious, false, or not true to fact, or incomplete. 

Furthermore, Classis must examine him, and may declare him eligi- 
ble for a call, only after having gained the approval of Synod. 

These are strict rules, but past experiences have taught the Churches 
to be very careful and strict. 


ARTICLE X 

A Minister , once lawfully called , may not leave the congre- 
gation with which he is connected , to accept a caU elsewhere, 
without the consent of the Consistory, together with the Dea- 
cons, and knowledge on the part of the Classis; likewise no 
other Church may receive him until he has po'esented a proper 
certificate of dismission from, the Church and the Classis where 
he served. 

Article 5 stipulates how a Minister serving one Church, may be 
called by another Church. Article 10 does not repeat the stipulations 
of Article 5, but the present article tells us how a Minister receiving 
a call from another congregation should proceed if he desires to ac- 
cept the call. In post-Reformation days, as Jansen remarks, there 
were itinerant, self-appointed preachers who transgressed in the three- 
fold way. First, they began to preach without an examination, and 
without a calling; against this evil Articles 3 and 4 were formulated. 
Secondly, these irregular preachers insisted on traveling from place 
to place and refused to become the Minister of a certain Church; with 
a view to this evil Article 7 was adopted. Thirdly, these men, if they 
did not accept a call to a certain Church, would leave their Church 
when they grew tired of it and when they saw fit, without consent of 
the Consistory or Classis; against this irregularity Article 10 was 
adopted. 

1. Conditional and unconditional calls. 

Originally Article 10 read as follows: “Een Dienaer, eens wettelyc- 
ken beroepen zijnde, mach de Ghemeente, daarhij sonder conditie 
aanghenomen is, niet verlaten. . . .” That is, “A Minister once law- 
fully called, may not forsake the congregation which accepted him 

without conditions ” The words “without conditions” were left 

out of the Church Order as revised in 1905 by the Churches of Hol- 
land. In the early days of the Reformed Churches of Holland, calls 
were often issued conditionally. Some Ministers were forced to leave 
their regular congregations to save their lives. They would remove 
to another territory where the persecution was not pressed. Often 


50 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


this would be across the national borders. Some regularly organized 
Church or some refugee Church might desire the services of one of the 
refugee Ministers. In such a case the call letter would stipulate that 
the Minister was free to return to his own Church when conditions 
would permit. But there was a second reason why calls were often 
extended with a condition attached. Since there were no regular 
training schools for the ministry many Ministers were not very com- 
petent, and hence Ministers were often called to serve for a certain 
period on trial. If they proved to be undesirable because they lacked 
knowledge or did not study sufficiently, or did not show Christian con- 
secration, no permanent call was issued. 

When persecution ceased, and when only those were called to the 
Ministry who had previously been declared candidates, there was no 
longer need for the provision of conditional calls. Moreover, con- 
ditional calls, so it was judged, were not ideal. For emergency situ- 
ations they are permissible. But for ordinary circumstances the best 
interests of the Church of Christ requires that calls be for a definite 
period. Unconditional calls are also in full harmony with Scripture 
since Prophets and Apostles were called of God for life. However, if 
ever the conditions become extraordinary once more, or if any Church 
finds itself in extraordinary circumstances, conditional calls would be 
permissible. Needless to say, no Classes should ever approve of 
conditional calls unless there are very extraordinary and weighty 
reasons. 

2. The duty of a Minister toward the Church he is serving, when he 
desires to accept a call to another Church. 

A Minister “may not leave the congregation with which he is con- 
nected” without consent of his fellow office-bearers in the Church 
which he is serving. In Dutch the expression “niet verlaten” is used. 
This does not simply mean “not to leave”, but “not to forsake.” It 
is the same word that Scripture employs when it tells us that hus- 
bands shall not forsake their wives. There is a bond of union be- 
tween a Minister and his flock, which is, not identical with the bond 
of union between husband and wife, but which is akin to the mar- 
riage bond. Pastor and flock belong together. And not without 
prayerful weighty reasons should this bond be broken. 

Neither is it up to the Minister alone to decide that he must sever 
his connections with his Church. Article 10 clearly and specifically 
states that no Minister shall accept a call to another congregation 
except his fellow office-bearers of the Church he is serving (Consistory 
and Deacons), give their consent. In other words, Article 10 pre- 
scribes that when a Minister comes to the conclusion that he should 
accept a certain call, such a Minister must inform the Consistory and 
the Deacons and seek their consent. It stands to reason that the 
Minister is required to state, in a general way at least, why he feels 
that he should accept the call in question. How else could the Con- 
sistory and the Diaconate reach a conscientious decision? 

In their considerations the Elders and Deacons may not be governed 
by personal favor or antipathy, but only by the facts at hand. The 
glory of God through the coming of His Kingdom should control 
them also in this case. 

If ever the Elders and Deacons feel that they should not give con- 
sent, and when a frank and mutual discussion fails to change the 
mind of a Minister as well as that of the Elders and Deacons, then 
the case goes to Classis for disposal. 

It is rather remarkable that this very plain stipulation of our 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


51 


Church Order is almost completely ignored in our Churches. To the 
best of our knowledge the great majority of our Ministers, when they 
wish to accept a call, simply notify the Church whose call they are 
accepting, and then give notice to the Church they are serving. 
Others accept and then ask consent of the Consistory by way of 
asking ministerial credentials, of which anon. 

Yet the way prescribed in Article 10 is the only correct procedure. 
The tie that binds the Minister and his Church was not made, as 
far as human factors are concerned, merely by the Minister, but by 
him and the office-bearers for the congregation. It is no more than 
reasonable that both parties also co-operate when the tie is severed. 

It stands to reason that it would seldom happen that a Minister, 
after prayerful consideration, would feel that he should accept a call, 
that then his fellow office-bearers would refuse to release him. But 
it is worthy of note that many years ago it often happened (namely 
in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands), that a Minister de- 
sired to accept a call to another Church, but that the decisions of 
Consistory and Classis were contrary, so that he continued to labor 
in the Church which he thought he should leave. * 

3. Approval on the part of the Classis also required. 

Article 10 here prescribes that a Minister who desires to leave his 
charge in order to accept a call to another congregation, must also 
notify his Classis. This notification should precede the actual, official 
acceptance of a call. This is clear from the wording of Article 10, 
for it plainly states that a Minister shall not accept a call to another 
Church without the knowledge of Classis. This provision aims at 
more than a mere notification for information. 

The fact that Article 10 requires more than a formal notification 
to Classis is also evident from the original Dutch wording. It uses 
the phrase “met voorweten van de Classe.” Now the expression “met 
voorweten”, fully rendered in English would read: “with prior knowl- 
edge of.” The Minister who desires to accept a call to another 
Church must therefore seek consent from his Consistory not only, but 
also the approval of the Classis. And that before he notifies the 
calling Church that he has accepted their call. 

Why should a Classis have this opportunity? Because the Classis 
has a very definite interest in the matter. There may be so many 
vacancies in the Classis or in the neighborhood of the Church which 
the Minister concerned is serving, that in the estimation of the Classis 
he cannot well be spared at that time. Classis may also judge that 
the continued labors of that particular Minister are very desirable in 
the Church which he is serving. 

This acknowledgment of Classical rights would not prohibit a Min- 
ister from sending a provisional letter of acceptance to the Church 
concerned. He should notify the Consistory of the calling Church that 
he has determined to accept the call of their Church; that his present 
Consistory has given its consent; and that he is seeking classical ap- 
proval. In our day a matter of this kind would go directly to Classis 
if a meeting of Classis is near at hand. If not, the matter would go 
to the Classical Committee, which in most Classes is charged by 
Classis to act for it in such matters between sessions of Classis. 


1. For instances see Bouwman: Ctereforxneerd Kerkreoht, I, pp. 444, B. 


52 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


4. Certificates which a Minister must present to the Church having 
called him, before he can be installed. 

Article 10 mentions two certificates which a Minister must present 
to the Church in which he is to be installed. One from the Church 
which he has just served, and one from the Classis to which this 
Church belongs. Certain official and important matters require offi- 
cial documents. This is for the safety of all concerned. Mere verbal 
assurances are sometimes unreliable. 

What should these certificates certify? According to Article 5 
these certificates must give testimony to the fact that the Minister 
concerned is sound as to doctrine, and worthy and desirable as to his 
conduct. Or as Article 5 literally states, he must show “good ecclesi- 
astical testimonies of doctrine and life.” 

In the case of a Minister changing from one Church to another, 
when does his term of office officially cease in the Church he is leav- 
ing, and when does it begin in his new charge? Synod of 1926 ruled 
that, “When a Minister changes pastorates, the new Church becomes 
responsible for his salary, etc., from the day of his farewell in the 
former charge, unless some other terms were agreed upon between 
the Minister and the new Consistory (as, for example, in the matter 
of a vacation.)” Acts 1926, Art. 57, p. 7. 

Should a Minister entertaining a call from another Church always 
confer with his Consistory, and ask the brethren whether in their 
opinion he should continue his labors with them or accept the call? 
If the Minister is fully persuaded that his Consistory is anxious to 
have him continue his labors with them, such a consultation is hardly 
necessary. But as a rule it is no doubt advisable that the Minister 
consult his fellow office-bearers. A frank discussion and a frank vote 
may be very' Beneficial for him. If a Consistory really feels that a 
change would be good for both Minister and congregation they should 
be fair and frank enough to say so. And it stands to reason that a 
Minister should not lightly ignore the opinion of his Consistory, al- 
though the decision rests with him and not with the Consistory. That 
is to say, if a Minister is persuaded in mind and heart that God would 
have him continue his labors in the Church he is serving, then he 
must decline the call under consideration, even though the Consistory 
should desire to see him go. 


ARTICLE XI. 

On the other hand, the Consistory , as representing the con- 
gregation, shall also be bound to provide for the proper support 
of its Ministers, and shall not dismiss them from service withy- 
out the knowledge and approbation of the Classis and of the 
Delegates of the (particular) Synod . 

SUPPORT AND DISMISSAL. 

This and the foregoing article are closely related. Article H) stipu- 
lates what the obligations of a Minister toward his Church are. He 
may not forsake his Church. Departure for another field of labor 
must be in keeping with the rules adopted, including consent of the 
Consistory of the Church he desires to leave. Article 11, on the other 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


53 


hand, specifies the Church’s duty toward its Ministers. It may not 
forsake him. He is entitled to proper support, etc. 

1. Proper ministerial support. 

Why do our Churches stipulate in the present article that our Min- 
isters must be properly supported? In the first place from considera- 
tions of expediency. It is to the best interest of the Churches that 
their Ministers receive sufficient support. If our Ministers were not 
supported by the Churches which they serve they would have to sup- 
port themselves. This would prevent them from giving all their time 
and attention to the all-important work of the ministry. Insufficient 
support would compel the Ministers concerned to seek other means 
of income with which to augment their insufficient salaries. 

Now it is not below the dignity of any man to engage in some 
secular art or trade. Not at all. It was not below the dignity of the 
great Apostle Paul to do the work of a tent-maker at Corinth. (Paul, 
let us remember, plied his trade of tent-maker at Corinth because 
of a certain narrow, unwholesome, critical spirit which prevailed 
there. He supported himself so that none could say that Paul sought 
himself, and so that the Gospel might have its free course, (cf. I Cor. 
9:12.) Neither would it be below the dignity of any one of our Min- 
isters or theological professors to work in an office or factory; to 
run a farm, carpenter shop, or grocery store. But it is very emphat- 
ically inadvisable. Ministers should give all their time and thought 
and energy to the great and glorious calling which is theirs. If they 
do not, the Churches are bound to suffer spiritually. Therefore 
Churches must see to it, if at all possible, that Ministers do not have 
to forsake their calling in the least. Let the words of I Cor. 6:12, 
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient”, also 
be remembered in this connection. 

Secondly, Churches should properly provide for their Ministers be- 
cause Scripture demands this very specifically. When Jesus sent 
forth His disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, He said that 
they needed not to make prior provisions for their needs, “. . . for 
the laborer is worthy of his food” (Matt. 10:10). And again, “the 
laborer is worthy of his hire.” (Luke 10:7). In I Cor. 9 Paul tells 
us that proper support of those that labor in the Gospel is the natural 
and normal thing. He shows us that the principle which would dic- 
tate this support is operative in the natural realm, as it was also by 
God’s decree in the spiritual service of the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion. And then he concludes with the unmistakable dictum: “Even 
so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the Gospel should live 
of the gospel” (I Cor. 9:14). 

Furthermore, the primary application of the much quoted passage, 
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, 
that shall he also reap,” (Gal. 6:7) pertains to the proper support of 
those that labor in the Gospel. 

What does the Church Order mean when it speaks of proper sup- 
port? He who receives a salary which permits him to work with 
undue worries, and with reasonable comfort, may be said to receive 
proper support. 

It may also be said in this connection, that the term “proper sup- 
port”, from the nature of the case, includes more than the bare neces- 
sities of life. For example: a Minister certainly should be able to pay 
off his Student debts. He should also be able to buy books constantly. 
And books as a rule are expensive. He should also be able to give 


54 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


liberally, as a good example to others. And for the sake of his calling 
he should be able to present a neat appearance. 

Local and individual circumstances should also be considered by a 
Church when it seeks to determine which salary to pay. For instance, 
the prices for food and clothing are not the same for every section 
of the country. And some have small families, whereas others have 
large families. We have heard of one of our Churches which called 
its Minister for a certain stipulated sum, plus $100 for every depend- 
ent child in the family. This basic salary plan is also in operation 
in some of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. Missionaries 
of various denominations have for years been paid according to this 
plan. We certainly would endorse it, inasmuch as it appears alto- 
gether just and in strict harmony with the present article. 

Would it be wise and just to work for uniform salaries? Some 
have contended that it would be. But there simply is too much varia- 
tion as to living expenses between the various localities in which our 
Churches are found; between city and rural communities; and be- 
tween small families and large families. And every Minister, ac- 
cording to Article 11, should receive enough to support himself and 
his family. The exact amount should be determined according to local 
and individual conditions. 

Let us not fail to acknowledge, however, that there has been, and 
that there still is too much irregularity. Some Ministers receive much 
larger salaries than others; in some instances twice as much as 
others, although the needs and requirements are equal. In general 
it may be said that we should remedy this situation by urging all our 
Churches to do their utmost, and by giving substantial subsidies to 
weak Churches in order that these may bring the salaries of their 
Ministers to a proper level. Large and strong Churches should ever 
be ready to help their small and weak sister Churches. The words 
of Holy Writ: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law 
of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2), were not only written for individual Christians, 
but also for Churches. 

Each Church is at liberty to gather the salary of its Minister as 
it sees fit. However, money raising schemes such as bazaars, baked- 
goods sales, etc., to which many Churches of our land have resorted, 
stand condemned. The giving should always be voluntary and from 
a motive of love and duty toward the Kingdom. Most of our Churches 
for some years past have employed the budget system for all their 
congregational expenses, including the salaries of Ministers. Weekly 
contributions are made by means of “budget envelopes.” The budget 
contribution, it should be remembered, is also a gift, not a payment 
of an ecclesiastical tax. No Consistory may assume to tax the mem- 
bers of its Church. All our giving for the Church should be held on 
a high plane. Giving for the Church of God should also be an act 
of worship, gratitude, and joy. He who gives under compulsion misses 
a real blessing, and dishonors God and His Church. Consistories, on 
the other hand, may and must admonish those who fail to give ac- 
cording to the measure of prosperity which God has given them. But 
mere taxation should not be tolerated in God’s Church. Consistories 
may and should inform the congregation as to the amount needed to 
cover thq budget. But a member should not feel that he has done his 
full duty if he has given the average of what is required per family 
in order to “raise the budget.” Some can and should give far more 
than the average for the sake of those that cannot nearly reach the 
average. 

In former yeara, both in Europe and in America, the Minister’s 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


55 


salary would be raised in part at least through the renting of pews. 
Some Churches still have this practice. The custom has met with in- 
creasing disfavor, however, and rightly so. It is not in harmony with 
the Lord’s admonition as found in James 2:1-5. Some Churches main- 
tain “family pews” although not charging pew-rent. Definite pews 
are assigned to each family. This practice has much in its favor. 
Parents and children belong together in God’s providence. Why should 
they separate, as is often done in our Churches today, when they 
worship God in His house ? Our present custom of free pews for ali, 
has points in its favor, but it also has its defects. The assigned pew 
plan would at least keep parents and children together in worship. 
And that would also promote attentiveness and good order on the 
part of the growing youth. 

If a Minister should be a man of means, then would his Church 
nevertheless be obligated to support him? I Cor. 9 leaves no room 
for doubt. It clearly teaches that such as labor in the Gospel are en- 
titled to live by the Gospel. 'There is no intimation at all that such 
as have other means of subsistence, are not entitled to support. Also, 
during Old Testament times the Priests and Levites received tithes 
regardless of their personal circumstances. This was by command of 
God. Hence we take it, our Church Order makes no exception, but 
simply states what the Churches should do in all cases. The moneys 
to which their labors entitle Ministers of some means (to be sure a 
rather hypothetical class of Ministers as far as our Church is con- 
cerned) these moneys are theirs, to use or to give away as they see 
fit, and concerning which they shall have to render an account before 
God. Of course, if any Minister of means desires to labor for but a 
small salary, or for no salary at all, that would be entirely his busi- 
ness. And in case the Church concerned should happen to be a poor 
struggling Church, good-will of this type certainly would be very 
commendatory. 

2. Dismissal from service. 

Dismissal according to Article 11 is not suspension, and far less 
is it deposition, (cf. Art. 79 and SO.) A dismissed Minister is one 
who has been debarred from his ministerial rights and duties in the 
Church whose Minister he is. Or again, a dismissed Minister is one 
who is not allowed to exercise his ministerial duties in his own 
Church. As far as the active execution of his duties in his own Church 
is concerned, a dismissed Minister is a debarred Minister. He has 
been barred from his ministerial work in and for his Church. If any 
other Church asks him to preach for them or to work in their midst, 
he is fully at liberty to do so. He is also eligible for a call from an- 
other Church. 

Troubles and difficulties may arise which make it impossible or un- 
desirable that a Minister continue to serve his Church, even though 
these troubles and difficulties are not of such a nature that the Min- 
ister must be suspended (depriving him temporarily of his ministerial 
rights for the whole denomination), or that he must be deposed. 
(Again cf. Art. 79 and 80.) Now Article 11 provides that in such a 
case the Consistory can notify Classis of the sad state of affairs and 
seek the approval of Classis for its desire to debar their Minister 
from exercising his ministerial rights and duties in and for their con- 
gregation. If Classis, together with the three Synodical Delegates, 
deems debarment necessary or advisable, it so decides. Proper notice 
of this action is then made and notice is given to the Churches that 
the brother is permitted to preach the Word and to administer the 


56 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Sacraments elsewhere, and that he is eligible for a call from any 
Church which may desire his services. As a rule the dismissing 
Church agrees to pay the Minister part of his salary for a few 
months to come. 

This article does therefore not apply when a Minister is doctrinally 
unsound or wanting in his Christian conduct. Dismissal may never 
be substituted for suspension or deposition. Neither may Article 11 
be used when a congregation or Consistory desires to “get rid” of 
its Minister for insufficient and unworthy reasons. But this article 
does apply when the relationship between a Church and its Minister 
has become so strained that real co-operation seems impossible, or 
when the congregation refuses to support him (wrong though this 
may be in and by itself), or when it is evident that he cannot be a 
blessing unto the Church concerned because of past happenings. It 
may be that wide differences as to character constantly make for trou- 
ble, or that a certain Minister lacks native ability to labor successfully 
for many years. Situations may arise which do not call for suspension 
or deposition, but very definitely for dismissal. 

During the first century after the Reformation, Ministers were 
sometimes transferred by the Classes from one Church to another. 
As Church life became better regulated and close supervision was 
exercised over those who sought the ministry and their admission to 
office, different situations regarding Ministers and their Churches be- 
gan to decrease, and transference was less^, necessary. But, more im- 
portant, it was also recognized that this latter procedure was really 
hierarchical, Roman Catholic in origin, and not Reformed. Conse- 
quently a concluding provision of Article 11, which permitted a Classis 
to transfer a Minister from one Church to another in case he was 
not supported properly, was dropped by the Reformed Churches of 
Holland in 1905 and also by our Churches in 1914. The provision, 
let it be said, had been obsolete and out of practice for many years. 

Why may no Consistory discharge its Ministers from active service 
in its Church without the knowledge and approbation of the Classis 
and of the Synodical Delegates? To guard against abuse. When a 
congregation is in a disturbed condition and feelings run high, abuse 
so easily creeps in. Often the parties most intimately involved and 
concerned can not judge objectively. They may speak and act very 
unjustly, though hardly aware of it. And unjust debarment of Min- 
isters from the execution of their God-given calling is, of course, al- 
ways calamitous for both Ministers and congregations, and an evil 
against which we must safeguard ourselves. 

Furthermore, the Minister concerned will object in every case well 
nigh. Also when there is just cause for debarment. Consequently 
Classis must decide as the logical and best qualified and authoritative 
third party. 

And, not to be forgotten, no one is merely Minister of his own local 
Church. He has received the privilege to preach the Word and to 
administer the Sacraments in any Church of the denomination. (Only 
upon proper request, of course.) In fact, he has been placed in office 
with the approval of Classis. No local Church, as long as it lives un- 
der the Church Order, can ordain a man to the ministry in and by 
itself. Neither can it depose, suspend, or debar a Minister from his 
office without the approval of Classis. 

What is the standing of a Minister who has been dismissed from 
his charge? He continues to be a Minister of the local Church which 
he was serving, but he has been barred from exercising the rights 
and duties of the ministerial office in his own congregation. He awaits 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


57 


a call from another congregation. When a call comes which he ac- 
cepts his ministerial certificate will state the facts of his case objec- 
tively and briefly. With the acceptance of a call to another Church 
he ceases to be a Minister of the Church he is leaving. 

The relation of a debarred Minister toward his Church is therefore 
akin to that of an emeritus Minister to his Church. The latter was 
excused from active execution of his ministerial duties, although he 
continues to be a Minister of the Church concerned. For instance: 
If an emeritus Minister should have to be deposed, this sad task 
would fall to the Consistory of the Church he served last and its 
Classis, would it not? So also the debarred Minister officially con- 
tinues to be Minister of the Church that debarred him. 

In case no call is forthcoming, the debarred Minister will ultimately 
lose all his ministerial rights. His abnormal position can, from the 
nature of the case, be only temporary. By force of circumstances he 
would sooner or later “enter upon a secular vocation” (Article 12), 
inasmuch as his Church cannot be expected to support him indefi- 
nitely, and because the position of a debarred Minister is from its 
very nature temporary. 


ARTICLE XII. 

Inasmuch as a Minister of the Word , once lawfully/ called as 
described above, is bound to the service of the Church for life , 
he is not allowed to enter wpon a secular vocation except for such 
weighty reasons as shall receive the approval of the Classis. 

Article 12 in the first place posits the principle that a Minister is 
bound to the service of the Church for life. Next the article states a 
rule which follows from this principle of service for life; namely, 
that a Minister may not enter upon a secular vocation. Thirdly, the 
article allows for exceptions to the rule that Ministers may not leave 
the ministry to engage in a secular calling. 

1. The principle of life-long service. 

The Roman Church teaches that the nature of the ecclesiastical of- 
fice is such that he who once receives the office can never lose it. The 
office and the office-bearer are inseparably united for life. Consequent- 
ly, when an office-holder in the Roman Church makes himself unwor- 
thy of his office, that office is not taken from him, but he is merely 
prohibited from exercising it. 

This is not our position. Yet we hold that a Minister “is bound to 
the service of the Church for life.” Why? In the first place because 
this is Biblical. Even in Old Testament days Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
and other Prophets were called to the Ministry for life. The disciples 
also and the apostles and evangelists were “separated” unto their 
ministry, not temporarily, but permanently, for life. 

Scripture also indicates that the service of the Word demands our 
undivided love, (John 21:15-17; II Cor. 5:14) our full time, (John 9:4) 
our readiness of will, (I Cor. 9:16,17) our unfailing perseverance 
(II Tim. 4:1-6) and our complete separation unto the work (Rom. 1:1). 

In full harmony with this principle of life-long service it may be 
noted th£t the internal call to the ministry in the heart of the future 
Ministers, is always interpreted to be a call for life. 


58 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Let it also be remembered that the dignity of the office of the min- 
istry of the Word is advanced by appointment for life. And it is also 
true that young men can hardly be expected to go through a course 
of training extended over many years unless they can look forward 
to the ministry as a life-long work. 

2. What the term “secular vocation” signifies. 

The word “secular” is here used in contrast with “spiritual,” and 
is applied to things belonging to this world and man’s life upon this 
earth from its material, temporal aspect. 

By secular callings we therefore understand arts and trades which 
pertain primarily to the temporal things of life. Such are all occu- 
pations and positions which do not belong to the gospel ministry in 
its primary form, (the preaching of the Gospel in regularly organized 
Churches, or to people not yet believers), not to the gospel ministry 
in its secondary and derived forms, (such as held by professors of 
theology, teachers of Bible, Ministers at institutions of mercy, etc.). 
School teachers, farmers, lawyers, builders, etc., therefore perform 
secular vocations. 

Needless to add, the Church Order does not mean to imply that 
secular vocations should not be performed spiritually. “Whether, 
therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of 
God” (I Cor. 10:31). 

3. Why does the Church Order allow for exceptions to Article 12? 

As noted above, the ministerial office is not irrevocably united with 

the person of the Minister. Nowhere in Holy Writ do we find a rule 
which would uphold this view. The office-holder can lose his office. 
Ministers are called and ordained for life in harmony with Biblical 
example and the nature of their internal calling and for reasons of 
great desirability. But conditions may arise, in the providence of God, 
because of which a Minister is warranted to leave his office. For ex- 
ample: a Minister might be called to fill an important chair in a 
Christian college; or to occupy a very responsible position in the 
government of his country; or a Minister may be compelled to as- 
sume a secular position when upon debarment according to Article 
11 he receives no new field of labor. Another may find that he lacks 
the necessary gifts and qualifications for the ministry, and thus feels 
himself bound in conscience to withdraw. Still another may be so 
disturbed and handicapped by doubts as to his divine calling to the 
ministry that ultimate withdrawal from office is permissible and ad- 
visable. 

But withdrawal from office is a very serious matter. Our fathers 
felt that the matter was so all-important that it should not be left 
merely to the Minister’s own judgment. And not even to that of the 
Minister and his Consistory. In all cases the judgment of Classis 
must be sought, and no withdrawal from the ministry is permitted to 
take effect without its approval. And to this the Reformed Churches 
of Holland have added in 1920: “Welk oordeel de Classis niet zal 
uitspreken zonder kennis en approbatie van de deputaten der Par- 
ticuliere Synode.” This means that in Holland today no Classis can 
sanction withdrawal from the ministry without prior approval of the 
delegates of the Particular Synod. This provision is altogether in 
harmony with the Reformed principle of denominational unity. It 
should also be added that the Churches of Holland by the addition of 
1920 merely restored what the early Reformed Churches had written 
into Article 12, but which had been eliminated in later years. It 
might be well to incorporate this provision in this article by adding 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


59 


to it: “not without the approval of the Synodical Delegates.” It af- 
fords additional safety against abuse, and even as the Churches in 
general were recognized through their Synodical Delegates when the 
Minister in question was admitted to the ministry, so also these 
Churches should be recognized when the Minister concerned wishes 
to leave his office. 

We have already indicated some reasons for leaving the ministry 
which may be termed worthy and sufficient. But the motives of those 
who desire to enter upon a secular vocation are not always worthy 
and sufficient. As unworthy and insufficient reasons for leaving the 
ministry we note the following: Seeking to escape the burden of the 
work of the ministry; aggravated by troubles in the Consistory or 
Church, or both; desiring greater financial income and luxuries of 
life; craving for greater honor and social prestige; seeking to escape 
confession, etc., after one has fallen into sin and abuse of office. 

4. Entering upon a secular vocation without consent. 

What should a Church and Classis do when a Minister forsakes his 
office and engages in a secular vocation without proper sanction or 
contrary to the decision of his Church and Classis? They should ad- 
monish the brother concerned, and endeavor to show him the error 
of his way. 

It may happen that a Minister resigns from office and that the 
Consistory and Chassis really feel that he is unfit for the minister. 
In such a case these bodies might be tempted to let matters run. This, 
however, would be against the Church Order. In such a case the 
brother concerned should be urged to seek release from office in the 
regular way. Respect for the high office of the ministry and for the 
good order of the Churches demands this. No one should ever be 
permitted to trifle with the office of the ministry. 

Anyone who persists in resigning from office and refuses to seek 
release in the prescribed way, or who persists in resigning his minis- 
terial office contrary to the decision of his Consistory and Classis, such 
a one should be suspended and if need be, deposed from office, (cf. 
Art. 80.) 

Jansen 1 answers the question whether a Minister, who forsakes 
his office contrary to the mind of his Consistory and Classis, becomes 
subject to discipline or not, negatively. He states that one who de- 
serts his office may have to be censured as an individual member, but 
that he cannot be disciplined as an office-bearer. With this latter judg- 
ment we disagree. Jansen finds that the phrases “faithless desertion 
of office or intrusion upon that of another” as found in Article 80 
(which article indicates sins “worthy of being punished with suspen- 
sion or deposition from office”) do not require or permit discipline for 
those who leave the ministry unlawfully. In his judgment Article 80 
refers only to Ministers who leave their own Churches and begin to 
preach and work elsewhere, without forsaking their ministerial office 
as such. But this interpretation of Article 80 is faulty. To be sure, 
he who leaves his own Church and begins to work and preach else- 
where is guilty of “faithless desertion of office”. But so is he that 
enters upon a secular vocation without just cause and contrary to 
his Consistory and Classis. Article 80 as we now have it was essen- 
tially already adopted by the Weselian Convention, 1568, the very 
first general ecclesiastical assembly of the Church of Holland. In the 
Weselian rules our present “faithless desertion of office or intrusion 
upon that of another,” reads: “oneerlijke onderkruijpinge van een 


1. Joh. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc. 1923, p. 55. 


60 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


anders plaatse, verlatinge zijnes Dienst en zijne Gemeynte sonder 
wettelijke toestemminge,” (Wesel, Chap. VII, Art. 14). The matter 
of Article 80 is covered in Article 10 of the Church Order of 1578. 
The rule of 1568 was rewritten by the Synod of 1578, but no essential 
changes were made. In this Church Order the phrases in which we 
are at present interested, read as follows: “trouloose verla tinge sijnes 
Dienste en indringinge in eens anders dienst.” Three years later, 
Synod of 1581, another very slight change was introduced in the ex- 
pression under discussion. The connective particle “en” was changed 
to “ofte”, resulting in the following reading: “trouloose verlatinge 
zijnes Dienst, ofte indringinge in eens anders Dienst.” Synod of 1618- 
19 left the article unchanged on this point. And thus it stands today. 
We believe that the foregoing facts clearly indicate that Article 
80 of our Church Order, refers not only to those who would 
leave their own Churches to begin preaching elsewhere, but 
also to those who leave their Churches without doing ministerial 
work elsewhere. Consequently we hold that according to Article 80, 
he who resigns or forsakes his office unlawfully becomes subject to 
discipline as an office-bearer. 

It is worthy of note that the older readings of Article 80, including 
the redaction of 1618-19, divide the two members of the phrase just 
discussed by means of a comma. This comma is not found in our 
present Church Order editions. Perhaps the loss of the comma has 
helped to promote an unhistorical interpretation of the stipulation. 

Dr. Rutgers 1 does not commit himself on the question, whether 
deserters from office are subject to discipline or not. 

This having been said, we add that in real exceptional cases, when 
the situation is somewhat dubious, or when extenuating circumstances 
are clearly present, a Consistory and Classis may be at liberty to 
acquiesce (submit quietly) in the fact that a Minister has assumed 
a secular vocation. A dismissed Minister, for instance, not receiving 
a call from another Church, may feel himself compelled and in duty 
bound to assume a secular vocation. Circumstances may be such that 
a Consistory and Classis dare not find fault with the brother, nor 
demand of him that he seek release from office in the regular way. 
But at all events the responsibility for the brother’s step should be 
left to him. The Consistory concerned should declare to the Churches 
that the party in question has entered upon a secular vocation entire- 
ly upon his own responsibility and that the Consistory and Classis 
have decided to acquiesce, and that the brother is therefore no longer 
a Minister of the Gospel. 

Almost needless to say, those who leave the ministry for a secular 
vocation lose all pulpit rights. They may not serve in the Churches 
as exhorters, unless special permission is granted. And no Classis 
should extend this privilege unless the brother concerned left the 
ministry with full approval of the ecclesiastical bodies involved, and 
unless there are very weighty reasons for extending this privilege. 
And to be sure, the Churches must request this privilege. No one 
should receive permission to exhort as a personal favor. 


1. cf. Rutgers: Kerkelijke Adviesen 1921, and College-voordrachten. Gere- 
formeerd Kerkrecht, 1918. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 
ARTICLE XIII. 


61 


Ministers , who by reason of age , sickness , or otherwise , ore 
rendered incapable of performing the duties of their Office, shall 
nevertheless retain the honor and title of a Minister, and the 
Church which they have served shall provide honorably for 
them in their need (likewise for the orphans and widows of 
Ministers) out of the common fund of the Churches, according 
to the general ecclesiastical ordinances in this matter . 1 

Article 11 regulates dismissal from service. Article 12 concerns 
entrance upon a secular vocation. The present article concerns emeri- 
tation. The word “emeritus” is Latin and was formerly used of a 
Roman soldier “who had served his time, a veteran.” An emeritus 
Minister is therefore one who has served his time, one no longer in 
active service. Lately the terms superannuated and emeritus have 
been used among ds. 

A standard dictionary tells us that to superannuate signifies: “to 
incapacitate by age; retire on account of age.” This same authority 
defines emeritus as follows: “retired from active service (as on ac- 
count of age), but retained in an honorary position; as, pastor emeri- 
tus.” From this it appears that we should persist in the use of the 
words emeritus and emeritation. For the specific meaning of these 
words harmonizes with our position regarding retired Ministers as 
expressed in Article 13. 

1. Valid reasons for emeritation. 

Two valid reasons for emeritation are specifically named in this 
article: age and sickness. When one becomes too old to perform his 
office properly, emeritation is in order. The Church Order does not 
designate a definite age. Some denominations permit their Ministers 
to retire at 65, others at 70. We are glad that our Churches have 
never named a definite figure. Some men are older at 60 than others 
at 75. Also here God is our sovereign disposer. And so every case 
should be judged on its own merits. We surely need earnest and ex- 
perienced leaders. And a hard and fast rule would rob the Churches 
of some of their best qualified leaders. Would anyone think of barring 
men from our legislative, executive, and judicial halls at Washington, 
D.C., just because they reached a certain age? Of course not. For 
it is a fact that the real leaders in the affairs of our nation are as a 
rule elderly men. Even at 80 and older, some statesmen are still ac- 
tive and influential. 

The tendency on the part of our Churches, and of other Churches 
as well, “to shelve” older Ministers, is partly due no doubt to the 
Ministers themselves. They should keep abreast of their time, and 
remain aggressive and persistently seek to apply the truth of God, 
not merely according to conditions as they were known during by- 
gone decades, nor merely to needs which are common to every cen- 
tury of Christianity, but also to contemporary conditions and prob- 
lems. 

However, the tendency under consideration is due in no small meas- 
ure to spiritual shallowness on the part of our Churches. A good 
speaker, though he be a poor pastor and lacks spiritual depth and 
earnestness, is to many a “good Minister.” And a man with average 


1. Synod of 1939 adopted a new reading of Article 13. See note appended 
to our discussion of this article, page 67. 


62 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


speaking abilities but with exceptional pastoral qualifications, spir- 
itual depth, judicious judgment, and a wide experience, is often re- 
ferred to as “no good.” The younger man who with oratorical flash 
and catch phrases preaching a topical sermon, is much preferred by 
many to an older man, who expounds and applies the Word of God 
to his flock, and who by means of thorough expository sermons brings 
to view the jewels of God’s eternal truth and the treasures of heaven- 
ly comfort and direction. 

Who would try to deny that this attitude reveals spiritual shal- 
lowness? Do not interpret these comments to be mere indictments 
of our people. For, as has been indicated, the responsibility for this 
spiritual shallowness must, to a large extent, be placed at the very 
doors of the Ministers themselves. For are not they the spiritual 
leaders and teachers of our people? Of course, we should not forget 
that there are extenuating circumstances. The spirit of the age is 
against our Ministers. We live in an age and land of shallowness. 
Again, many of our Ministers are too busy with all kinds of activities 
which lie at best on the periphery, and not at the center of the circle 
of their responsibilities as Ministers. Many of them lack time for the 
best pulpit work of which they are capable. But it is no less true 
that our Ministers have yielded too much to the spirit of the age, and 
they have digressed somewhat from thorough and fervent expository 
preaching. They have catered to the shallowness of some, perverting 
their tastes still more, and starting others in that direction con- 
stantly. 

Now this whole situation has led us to depreciate to an unwar- 
ranted extent many of our abler older Ministers. But, for all that, 
we need them and they can be of very valuable service to us. For 
this reason a hard and fast rule as to age of retirement should not 
be made. Article 13 is specific enough. The remedy for undesirable 
situations does not lie in the direction of “shelving.” 

The second valid reason for emeritation specifically named is sick- 
ness. Little need be said in this connection. Continued illness as a 
rule naturally renders a Minister incapable of performing the duties 
of his office. 

After mentioning age and sickness, the Church Order adds, “or 
otherwise.” This refers to conditions pertaining to the person of the 
Minister, just as age and sickness do. For the expressions are clearly 
kindred. The word “otherwise” simply refers to conditions which can 
be justly classified with old age and sickness. For example: nervous 
break-downs, permanent bodily injury, etc. Let it also be said that 
aged Ministers should not serve too long. If the advancing years or 
the increasing weaknesses of old age hinder a Minister from doing 
justice to all the work that is required of him, he ought to seek 
emeritation. He may not sacrifice his church’s welfare for his own 
benefit. And our Churches should never exact the utmost from our 
Ministers. To demand that a Minister continue to serve to the bitter 
end of his life, during his fast declining years, is neither charitable 
nor wise. Let us not forget in this connection that our retired Min- 
isters can still serve the Churches in a variety of capacities. They 
are not doomed to fruitlessness and inactivity just because they have 
been relieved from strenuous duties. 

2. The standing of emeritus Ministers. 

« , Tiie eme ritus Minister, so the Church Order stipulates, retains the 
‘honor and title of a Minister.” In other words, he remains in office. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 63 

If the phrase meant anything less than that, no emeritus Minister 
could administer the Word and the Sacraments. 

Furthermore, he continues to be the Minister of the local congre- 
gation which he last served. For no one according to Reformed 
Church polity and our own Church Order, can be an office-bearer, 
except he be such of a particular Church or congregation. 

What, then, is the standing of an emeritus Minister? Simply this: 
He is a full-fledged Minister of the Gospel of the Church which he 
served when he became emeritus. But he has been excused from the 
active execution of his ministerial duties. He does not have to preach. 
But he may if requested to do so. He does not have to attend Con- 
sistory meetings. But he may, if he is asked to do so. His relation 
to his Church even permits of his delegation to Classis and Synod. 

True, many emeritus Ministers leave their Church and become 
members of some other Church. But even so, he continues to be the 
Minister of the Church he served last. This is also plain from the 
fact that if ever deposition from office would become necessary, this 
would be the task of said Church and the Classis to which it belongs. 
The emeritus Minister who removes from his congregation remains 
officially connected with this Church as a Minister. As an individual 
member he can join the Church to which he moves. He may even 
serve the Church to which he removes after emeritation, as Elder 
or Deacon. But as a Minister he remains with the Church he last 
served as Minister. 

These opinions let it be said, are not at all new or original with us. 
They follow logically from the fact that the particular Churches are 
our ecclesiastical units, and that Reformed Church polity does not 
know a big super-Church of which one can be a member, and of which 
the particular Churches are but sub-divisions. Church membership 
attaches itself to the particular Churches and not to the denomina- 
tion as such. The same principle holds for the offices recognized and 
maintained by us. And to be sure, these opinions have the full back- 
ing of men like Rutgers, Bouwman and Jansen. 

3. Extent of support to which our emeritus Ministers are entitled. 

What is the meaning of the phrase, “in their need,” as it occurs 
in the present article? On this question there has been a difference 
of opinion for many years. Some say that the expression: “in their 
need” stands on par with “proper support,” as spoken of in Article 
11, concerning the support allotted to Ministers in active service. Ac- 
cording to these, Article 13 provides that our emeritus Ministers or 
their dependents, are entitled to full support, whether they are in 
need of this support or not. 

Others hold that the expression, “in their need,” refers to actual 
needs, needs which exist because the parties concerned have no 
other means of support. 

We are convinced that the latter group is right. We believe that 
the correct interpretation of our Church Order demands that we in- 
terpret the phrase, “in their needs,” literally, i.e., the Churches con- 
cerned are in duty bound to see to it that emejritus Ministers and 
their dependents shall not suffer want, but can live honorably and 
comfortably. 

Three considerations favor this interpretation: 

(1) The adverb “honorably” in the phrase points to the fact that 
our fathers were anxious that their incapacitated Ministers should 
be able to live honorably. Not, that they should be supported by the 


64 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Churches concerned, even if the Minister in question had an income 
sufficient for him and his dependents; 

(2) The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted in essence Article 13 as 
it now reads. But this great Synod merely approved of and restated 
what previous Synods had already agreed upon. For example: The 
Synod of Dort, 1578, decreed: “. . . dat sij den overighen tijd hares 
levens eerlick toebrenghen moghen.” That is to say, “. . . that they 
may be able to conclude their lives in an honorable way.” Synod of 
Middelburg, 1581; “. . . dat hem soo veel toegheleijt werde, daarop 
hij de reste zijns levens eerlick en bequamelick door comen moghe.” 
That is: “. . . so much shall be given him, that he may be able to 
finish his life honorably and satisfactorily.” Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 
1586, gave the following renderings: “. . . eerlijcken in haren nood- 
druft versorghet worden.” And this rendering was approved of or 
adopted by the great Synod 1618-19. And thus we have it today. 
“. . . provide honorably for them in their need.” 1 

The renderings given above, basic to what we have today, prompt 
us to favor the literal reading of the term “in their need.” 

(3) The expression is a translation of the original: “in hunne 
nooddruft.” Admittedly this word is all-important for the present 
question. According to Van Dale’s dictionary it means: “dringende 
behoefte, datgene wat tot onderhoud van het leven noodig is, levens- 
behoeften, levensmiddelen.” 

Furthermore, common usage of the words “nooddruft” or “nood- 
druftig” still refer to actual needs, and not to mere support or cost 
of living (cf. Van Dale’s Groot Woordenboek). 

Moreover, the etymology of the word “nooddruft” demands that 
we favor the literal interpretation of the expression, “in their need.” 
What does the origin of the word “nooddruft” reveal? Prof. J. Ver- 
coullie in his Beknopt Etymologisch Woordenboek der Nederlandsche 
Taal, tells us concerning this word: “het tweede lid is een afleiding 
van durven; het geheel— dringende behoefte.” And the word “durven” 
stands related, so this same authority says, to “derven,” which ac- 
cording to its primary meaning signifies, “ontberen,” “noodig hebben.” 

Does this interpretation of Article 13 imply that our emeritus Min- 
isters receive gifts of charity? Not at all. They continue to be full- 
time ordained workers in God’s Church, though either temporarily or 
permanently unable to perform their duties. And even as the Priests 
and Levites shared in the tithes and offerings of the people, though 
unable to perform their duties by reason of age or sickness, so our 
incapacitated Ministers receive their just dues, and not charity. 

And yet the Church Order makes a distinction. Article 11, con- 
cerning Ministers in active service, speaks of proper support, but Ar- 
ticle 13 speaks of provision of needs. Virtually the position of the 
Church Order is this: If the amount allowed, during the period of 
active service, is sufficient to cover the period of inactivity also, good 
and well. But if the salary paid proved to be just enough for the 
needs of each year so that the Minister upon emeritation is still in 
need of support, then the Church is in duty bound to give this. How 
much? Enough to rule out want and distress and to make a decent 
living possible. 

And if any emeritus Minister should have another source of income 
sufficient to make a decent living possible, then the Churches are not 
in duty bound to pay such a Minister anything toward his support, 


• cf * of s y nod referred to. See Kerkelijk Handboekje, Rotterdam, 

1764, or kindred publications. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


65 


inasmuch as he is no longer actually laboring in the Gospel, and 
has the means for an honorable living at his disposal. 

Upon which grounds does the Church Order stipulate that emeritus 
Ministers shall be honorably provided for in their needs? Ministers 
are required to give all their time and thought, and their whole life, 
to the Church and its task. The Churches do not allow them to pro- 
vide for the future through some money-making side-line. This is 
as it should be. But then it also follows upon a principle of common 
justice and fairness, that the Churches assure them the necessities of 
life. Consequently the Churches have obligated themselves to see to 
it that their incapacitated Ministers receive their necessities of life, 
also then when their years and strength are spent. To this support 
he is also entitled for his dependents who may need this help after 
his demise. 

Furthermore, I Cor. 9:14, “Even so did the Lord ordain that they 
that proclaim the gospel should live by the gospel,” and kindred 
passages noted when we discussed Article 11, certainly do not restrict 
support to those still healthy and active. 

Yet, the Church Order, according to our interpretation, does not 
say that the Churches must support their emeritus Ministers if the 
sufficiency of life and comfort is already theirs. Why not? It seems 
to us that the difference between that which the Scriptural principle 
warrants and what the Church Order prescribes is to be explained by 
the fact that our fathers did not care to demand their ultimate rights. 
In matters which did not violate a principle as such, they 
often were big-hearted, and would take a self-denying attitude. For 
this they deserve our admiration. Moreover, in keeping with this our 
Church Order often displays a remarkably well-balanced judgment. 
The provision of Article 13 we deem to be an example of this. They 
felt that a difference between active and inactive Ministers was in 
order. And so the first class the Church Order entitles to full support, 
whatever their personal circumstances, but the inactive by reason 
of old age or sickness, it entitles to that which constitutes their ac- 
tual needs. 

4. Significance of the phrase: “the Church which they have served.” 

This expression, as is agreed by all, refers to the Church which 

the brother concerned was serving when his emeritation became nec- 
essary. Says Prof. Wm. Heyns 1 on this point: “We admit that orig- 
inally this meant: the local Church which they served last, and also 
that our common fund is out of harmony with that original meaning.” 
The original Dutch word is singular, referring to a particular Church. 
The Church to which the emeritated Minister belongs, and with which 
he remains connected in the capacity of inactive office-bearer, is 
therefore charged by the Church Order to see to it that the emeri- 
tated Minister and his dependents are properly taken care of. 

5. Practical execution of Article 13. 

If a Minister finds that he is unable to perform the duties of his 
office by reason of advanced age, sickness, or some other dispositions, 
he should request his Consistory for emeritation. The Consistory, if 
it deems the considerations valid, then presents his request to Classis. 
If the Classis finds that emeritation should be given, it so decides. 
The decision of Classis, however, being subject to the approval of 
Synod, (cf. Acts. 1914.) 


1. Heyns: Handbook for Elders and Deacons, 1928, p. 102, 3. 


66 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


In case a Consistory finds that its Minister can no longer discharge 
his office properly by reason of age, sickness, etc., that body may 
take the initiative. The Consistory need not wait for the Minister to 
make the first move. The Reformed Churches of Holland adopted 
the following rule at their Synod held in 1893: “Emeritation, where 
necessary, takes place upon the request of the parties concerned, 
(either Minister or Consistory) by action of the Classis, supported 
by the Synodical Examiners of the Provincial Synod.” 

Neither is it necessary to wait until both parties, the Minister and 
the Consistory, can agree on the question of the Minister’s emerita- 
tion. In case of disagreement they can simply let Classis decide. 

To the common fund mentioned in this article, all the Churches 
are expected to contribute a proportionate amount annually. The ex- 
act sum needed is estimated by each Synod. 

The maintenance of a general fund is no doubt fair and proper. 
The first responsibility rests upon the Church concerned. But co- 
operation of all the Churches is highly necessary. If no common 
fund existed many Churches would be overburdened and much handi- 
capped in their work. Moreover, fairness dictates co-operation by all 
the Churches. A Minister may serve several Churches strong and 
able financially, but at the conclusion of his years of service may ac- 
cept a call to a smaller Church. Yet, without co-operation, this smaller 
and weaker Church would have to shoulder the full burden of re- 
sponsibility. 

If no common fund were maintained, Churches would certainly be 
inclined to refrain from calling elderly Ministers, who could serve 
them acceptably, because of the excessive financial burdens, which 
might come after a few years. 

However, originally our Church Order did not call for a common 
fund. This provision was added to Article 13 by our Synod of 1914. 
It would have been better if this revision had not been made. It cre- 
ates a dualism in Article 13, inasmuch as the article clearly attributes 
responsibility to the Church whose Minister the incapacitated office- 
bearer is, and at the same time rules that he shall be paid out of a 
common fund. Was this revision perhaps made under the impression 
that the phrase, “the Church which they have served” refers to the 
sum-total of our Churches? Or was it made because the emeriti 
were paid out of a common fund, while the Church they served last 
was not 6onsidered at all? At any rate, the revision tends to create 
the impression that “the Church” referred to is the denomination. 
And yet this certainly is not the case. 

We have no objection to a common fund properly organized and 
maintained as appears from what we have said above. Even our 
mother-Churches in the Netherlands have organized common funds. 
But we do believe that Synodical action toward the establishment of 
a common fund, without the incorporation of the clause under ques- 
tion in Article 13, would have been better. Thus the dualism re- 
ferred to would have been avoided and the principle fundamental to 
Article 13 could have been fully maintained. 

Synod of 1928 decided that when an emeritated Minister desires 
to re-enter active service he may not be called until the Consistory 
and the Classis that recommended him for emeritation deem that the 
reasons for his emeritation do no longer exist. (Art. 137, IX, 1928.) 
Is this a proper ruling? An emeritus Minister is a Minister in good 
and regular standing. Why should he not be permitted to consider 
and accept a call? Would it not be better to leave this whole matter 
to the brother concerned, the Church and Consistory calling and the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


67 


Classis of the Church? Sometimes Synods are tempted to make 
blanket rules, because of one or two irregular cases. But this is a 
dangerous policy, and not to the best interest of our Churches. 

t 

(After the major part of this commentary was completed the Synod of 
1939 adopted the following reading of Article 13: 

“Ministers, who by reason of age, sickness or otherwise, are ren- 
dered incapable of performing the duties of their Office, shall never- 
theless retain the honor and title of a Minister, and the Church 
which they have served shall provide honorably for them (like- 
wise for the orphans and widows of Ministers) out of the common 
funds of the Churches according to the general ecclesiastical 
ordinance in the matter.” 

The important differences between this revision of Article 13 and its 
previous reading, is the fact that the words, “in their need” have been 
deleted. 

This revision was made inasmuch as this same Synod approved of a 

? lan which divided the Emeritus Fund into two distinct funds, known as 
ension Fund and Relief Fund. According to the plan of 1939 all Ministers 
in active service are to contribute 3 percent of their salary annually to- 
ward the Pension Fund, in return for which all Ministers upon their emeri- 
tation, or their dependents, will receive an amount out of the Pension 
Fund; equalling two-fifths of the current average salary of the Christian 
Reformed ministry. Those who need more than the amount allowed as 
pension are to receive additional support out of the Relief Fund. 

Cf. Acts of Synod, 1939, pp. 21, 22, and Supplement XH-b, “Rules for 
the Pension and Relief Funds of the Christian Reformed Church,” 
pp. 227-231.) 


ARTICLE XIV. 

If any Minister, for the aforesaid or any other reason , is 
compelled to discontinue his service for a time, which shall not 
take place without the advice of the Consistory, he shall never- 
theless at all times be and remain subject to the call of the 
congregation. 


TEMPORARY RELEASE 

Article 14 concerns itself with what we usually call leave-of- 
absence. When a Minister seeks and receives temporary release from 
the duties of his office, he is said to be on leave-of -absence. , Hris 
term is borrowed from secular life, and although passable it might 
be better to speak of temporary exemption from duty, or temporary 
release from service, inasmuch as one may be temporarily released 
from the execution of the duties of his office, though not at all absent 
from his field of labor. However, this objection is not serious, and 
we shall use the expression when convenient in the consideration of 
srticlG 

It may be noted also that Article 14 does not say that the granting 
of temporary release from service is permissible. The article pre- 
supposes the necessity of such leaves. For that reason we read: “If 
any Minister .... is compelled to discontinue his service for a 
time . . . .” The main burden of Article 14 is therefore found in its 
concluding sentence, which reads: “. . . he shall nevertheless at all 
times be and remain subject to the call of the congregation.” From 
this it appears that the article would avoid irregularities as to the 
relationship between Ministers on leave-of-absence and their 
Churches. 


68 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


1. Reasons for temporary release. 

For which reasons is the taking and granting of leave-of -absence 
permissible? Article 14 answers: “. . . . for the aforesaid or any 
other reason . . . Doubtless the expression first of all refers back 
to Article 13 which speaks of old age, sickness, etc. Sickness, acci- 
dents, etc., may be of such a nature that an indefinite discharge from 
duty is called for. Then emeritation is in order. But these difficulties 
may also be of rather long duration, and yet according to all ap- 
pearances, of a temporary and passing nature. In the latter case, 
leave-of-absence would be in order rather than emeritation. 

There are good reasons to believe that the words “or any other 
reason,” were also meant to cover the cases of Ministers who were 
compelled to leave their Churches to save their lives in the days of 
persecution. It should be noted that Article 14 was in principle al- 
ready adopted in 1578, when the Roman persecutions had not yet 
spent their force in the Netherlands. 

The words: “or any other reason,” make room for any other 
weighty consideration of a compelling nature. For instance: in the 
past men have received leave-of-absence because they were appointed 
on Bible translation committees, or because they were appointed as 
delegates to foreign lands for the period of a few weeks or months. 

Repeatedly Ministers have received leave-of-absence according to 
Article 14 for the purpose of taking post-graduate work at some 
theological school. It has been objected that such should not be done 
inasmuch as Article 14 speaks of compelling circumstances and that 
one who desires to continue his studies is certainly not compelled 
to do so. In arguing thus one has the letter of this article in his 
favor but no more, for as indicated above, the final sentence of the 
article constitutes its core. In other words: the burden of this article 
is not that Ministers may not receive leave-of-absence unless they are 
forced to do so by circumstances, but that a Minister on leave-of- 
absence, “shall nevertheless at all times be and remain subject to 
the call of the congregation.” The significance of this provision we 
shall discuss forthwith. 

Now, to be sure, if a Minister has the inclination and the means 
for qualifying himself still further for useful service, and consequent- 
ly asks for a leave-of-absence, and if conditions in his congregation 
do not forbid his Consistory to grant him his desire, then neither he 
nor his Consistory is violating the intent of Article 14 when they 
proceed. As long as the motive is worthy, and the condition of the 
congregation permits, a leave-of-absence is altogether in order. 

Does this article tolerate indefinite leave-of-absence? No. The 
article states specifically: “If any Minister is compelled to discontinue 
his services for a time. . .” Leave-of-absence should therefore cover 
a specific period of time. Indefinite leave-of-absence, not uncommon 
in our Churches a few years ago, violates the intent of this article. 
Synod of 192$ was doubtlessly correct when it ruled that leave-of- 
absence should be given for only a definite period. This does not 
mean that the exact length of the leave must always be indicated in 
weeks or months or years. This is advisable and should be done if 
at all possible. When this appears to be impossible the approximate 
length of time should be stipulated. If this approximate period 
proves to be too short, for instance in cases of broken health, exten- 
sions can be arranged. The purpose of the leave must always be 
valid and definitely stated, for our Churches must ever guard the 
uniqueness and sacred character of the office. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


69 


If circumstances are such that an indefinite release from active 
service is required, Article 13 applies and not Article 14. 

2. Significance of advice of the Consistory. 

What is the significance of the expression: “which shall not take 
place without the advice of the Consistory?” The term advice here 
stands on par with approval. If a Consistory advises against a con- 
templated leave the Minister is required to stay, unless, of course, 
he appeals to a major assembly and the major assembly should deem 
that the Consistory acted without sufficient grounds. 

The tie which binds a Minister to his Church was established by 
both Minister and Church. Consequently no Minister can do as he 
sees fit and ignore the opinion of his Consistory. That would be a 
grievous violation of rights and would call for disciplinary action. 

3. Subject to the call of the congregation. 

Article 14 stipulates that a Minister who has received a temporary 
release “shall nevertheless at all times be and remain subject to the 
call of the congregation.” What does this mean? 

That the Minister to whom temporary release from active service 
is granted, continues to be Minister of the congregation which grants 
him such temporary release or leave-of-absence, and that he con- 
tinues to be subject to the calling with which he was bound to that 
Church. The Dutch article speaks of, “de beroeping der gemeente.” 
The significance of this calling or “beroeping” is clearly set forth in 
Article 4. It consists of election, examination, approbation, and ordi- 
nation. The calling of a Minister into the sacred office places him 
under definite obligations. There is a definite relationship between 
him and his Church. He is ever subject to the calling with which he 
was called. His promises are ever binding. He has submitted him- 
self to the jurisdiction of his Church, etc., etc. Now Article 14 stipu- 
lates that this calling, with all its implications, remains in force even 
though he has been temporarily excused from the active execution 
of the duties of his office. 

From the foregoing it follows that at the end of his leave-of- 
absence the Minister concerned goes back to work in his Church. 
Unless it has been clearly stipulated that at the termination of his 
leave he will endeavor to secure a call from another Church and will 
await such a call. Usually this understanding exists. Then the Min- 
ister forfeits all rights to salary, parsonage, etc., in order that his 
Church can call another Minister. There is nothing in this article 
which forbids this arrangement. Its advisability depends on the cir- 
cumstances involved. But as long as he has not accepted a call to 
another Church in the regular way, which includes permanent release 
from his present Church, he is and remains subject to the call of 
that Church whose inactive Minister he is. He stands under the su- 
pervision of the Consistory of that Church, etc. 

The concluding sentence of Article 14 must be explained in the 
light of preceding articles and of the general principles of Reformed 
Church government. In our humble opinion, the article is not at all 
hard to understand when this is done. If it be remarked that some 
of the renderings of Article 14 in our old Dutch Church Orders speak 
of congregations (“subject to the call of the congregations”) and 
that the use of the plural favors the interpretation which holds that 
Article 14 stipulates that a Minister on leave-of-absence may be 
called by any Church at any time while he is on leave, then he would 
reply with Dr. Bouwman that the plural is not used in these old 


70 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Church Orders. It is true that our Article 14 of today is essentially 
the same as what the Synod of 1578 already adopted, and that there 
is a direct connection between these older readings and our present 
readings. It is also true that the article of 1578 speaks of “gemeen- 
ten” (soo sullense nochtans haar tot alien tijden de beroepinge der 
Gemeeten onderwerpen), but it is not true that this word “gemeenten” 
is plural.' According to old Dutch usage this word “gemeenten” in 
the phrase under consideration is a singular, possessive case. 1 

Besides, any Minister in good standing in the Christian Reformed 
Churches, whether he be on leave-of-absence or not, is always eligible 
to a call and must always give serious consideration to each call 
coming to him. This is such a self-evident fact that our Church Order 
does not even mention it specifically, neither here nor elsewhere. 


ARTICLE XV. 

No one shall be permitted, neglecting the Ministry of his 
Church or being without a fixed change, to preach indiscrimi- 
nately without the consent and authority of Synod or C las sis. 
Likewise, no one shall be permitted to preach or administer the 
Sacraments in another Church without the consent of the Con- 
sistory of that Church. 

NO PREACHING ANYWHERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY 

In Article 3 the Church Order specifies that none shall be permitted 
to administer the Word and the Sacraments unless he be lawfully 
called. Article 4 attributes the right of calling to the particular 
Churches. And Article 7 rules that none shall be called to the min- 
istry unless they be stationed in a particular place. (Except they 
be sent to do Church extension work.) , 

At the basis of Article 7 and the whole Church Order lies the 
church governmental principle which acknowledges each particular 
Church to be an authoritative organization, and which holds that only 
they have a right to administer the Word and Sacraments who have 
been called to the ministry by a particular Church. Reformed Church 
polity does not look upon the denomination as being the real Church 
and the particular Churches, as being local subdivisions of the larger 
body. But Reformed Church polity holds that the particular Churches 
are the essential units, and that the denomination is a God-ordained 
federation of Churches. Now from these principles our Church Order 
in the present article deduces two additional principles. First, none 
shall be permitted to preach indiscriminately without the consent of 
Synod or Classis. Secondly, none shall be permitted to preach or ad- 
minister the Sacraments in another Church without the consent of 
the Consistory of that Church. 

1. None shall be permitted to preach indiscriminately. 

This provision of Article 15 would prevent Ministers from leaving 
their pulpits and fields of labor, to preach and work in other fields, 


1. cf. Dr. W. L. van Helten, Middennederlandsclie Spraakkuast, p. 367; 
Dr. P. L». Rutgers, Acta, 492-96. Ctted by Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerk- 
recht, 1934, II, 480. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


71 


not assigned to them. Shortly after the Reformation, and also at a 
later date, some brethren would leave their own pulpits and fields, 
at certain intervals or permanently, and begin preaching in other 
localities. Perhaps they just wanted a change. Perhaps they cher- 
ished just or unjust grievances against the Churches which they 
were serving. Perhaps they were moved by the needs of the terri- 
tories in which they began to preach. Whatever the motive, good or 
bad, the Churches found that this practice was harmful for more 
than one reason. 

But the article was also and especially meant for men “without a 
fixed charge” who roamed from place to place and “preached” wher- 
ever they could. We have spoken of this class of workers under 
Article 9. Many of these roamers were unworthy because of limited 
ability or character. Many made a good impression but were never- 
theless undesirable. Yet they forced themselves upon the Churches, 
or they began to preach in localities without an organized Church, 
entirely upon their own responsibility, instead of seeking a mandate 
in the regular way. 

Today the phrase, “being without a fixed charge,” refers particu- 
larly to Ministers that have been dismissed from their Churches ac- 
cording to Article 11, i. e., Ministers who have been barred from the 
active execution of their task in their Churches, due to trouble, etc. 
These brethren may not go about preaching in various unchurched 
communities without consent of Synod or Classis. Furthermore, there 
are stranded Ministers, Ministers whose congregations have dwindled 
away due to the removal of their members to other regions, because 
of constant crop failures or like reasons. These also should not take 
matters in their own hands and begin preaching where and when 
they see fit. It certainly is laudable when Ministers without fixed 
charges are anxious to work and are eager to bring the Gospel to 
the unchurched. But work of this type should be under the super- 
vision of the Churches. The wisdom and rights of all the Churches 
concerned must be fully recognized by Ministers that desire to es- 
tablish new Churches. 

Some of these roaming preachers of former years defended their 
unauthorized practices by saying that their position corresponded 
with that of the Apostles and Evangelists of New Testament times. 

But the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 7, already refuted this state- 
ment by saying that the offices of the Apostles and Evangelists had 
ceased long ago. 

The phrase, “to preach indiscriminately,” we judge, is a rather 
unhappy translation of the Dutch “hier en daar te gaan prediken.” 
To preach indiscriminately is to preach carelessly, without discrimi- 
nation, without distinction. The article, of course, refers to preaching 
in various localities, particularly Churchlees communities. 

2. Consent and authority of Synod or Classis. 

Why should the Church Order prescribe authority to Synod or 
Classis fn this matter? 

Because Church extension work, the organization of new Churches, 
is not merely the interest of one Church. Far less is it the interest 
and concern of some individual Minister. But it is the interest of 
all the Churches concerned. Consequently it is proper that when any 
Minister without a field desires to work as Missionary or Church 
organizer in any community, that he seek permission from all the 
Churches concerned (Classis or Synod) and not just from one Church. 

Synod or Classis, the article reads. As a rule Classis can best regu- 


72 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


late and supervise this Church organization work. However, if it ap- 
pears to be more expedient that Synod give consent and authority, then 
such is altogether permissible and proper. Synod is even mentioned 
in Article 15. 

Let it be noted that this article does not say that Ministers who 
are engaged in Church extension work, must do so under the direct 
charge and supervision of a major assembly. Every Minister labors 
first of all upon the charge of his particular Church and under su- 
pervision of its Consistory, (cf. Art. 4, 5) and secondarily and in- 
directly he stands under the authority of the major assemblies. Even 
Ministers who according to Article 11 are debarred from active serv- 
ice in their Churches continue to stand under the supervision of their 
Consistories as long as they have not accepted a call to another con- 
gregation or have not entered upon a secular field of labor. Article 
15 only stipulates that home mission work is not to be undertaken 
by any Minister who lacks a field, without authorization by a major 
assembly. 

Furthermore, Article 15 refers especially to men, “without a fixed 
charge.” These individuals often held no official relationship to any 
particular Church. That is still the case with stranded Ministers, 
Ministers whose Churches have disbanded. In such a case the indi- 
vidual concerned may do some mission work under the direct super- 
vision of a major assembly, but then only as a temporary emergency 
measure, which would cease to operate as soon as the regular rela- 
tionships had been established. Only under special circumstances do 
the Churches in general begin to perform a task which essentially 
belongs to the particular Church. It is well to note in this connection 
that our new Home Mission Order, adopted by the Synod of 1936, 
and which put our Home Mission or Church Extension work under 
direct authority of Synod, very definitely demands that every Home 
Missionary be called and charged by a particular Church, with which 
Church he stands connected as Minister of the Gospel. 

3. No administration of Word and Sacraments without 
Consistorial consent. 

The primary purpose of the first part of Article 15 is to safeguard 
the cause of God against roaming, self-appointed preachers. It puts 
this class of men, often without any official ministerial connections 
with any particular Church, under the authority of the united 
Churches. The primary purpose of the second part of this article 
is to safeguard the integrity and rights of the particular Churches. 
Without the consent and authority of the Consistory of the particular 
Church, no one is allowed to administer the Word or the Sacraments 
in its domain or locality. 

So for Churchless communities, lying outside of the territory of 
any particular Church, those who desire to do mission work must 
receive permission from the united Churches. But he who would 
preach within the bounds of one of our Churches must seek his con- 
sent from the Consistory of the Church concerned. 

This provision and safeguard would not be found in our Church 
Order if we had the collegiate system of church government. For 
according to the collegialistic system the denomination is the Church, 
and the particular Churches are looked upon as mere sub-divisions of 
the Church. Ministers of collegialistic Churches are Ministers of the 
denomination, the super-church, stationed in various sections of the 
Church. They can be sent by those in authority within the bounds 
of one of their local Churches to preach and administer the Sacra- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


73 


ments .1 without consulting the particular Church concerned. The 
Churches of a collegiate Church are ruled from the top down, not 
from the bottom up. 

But we have the Reformed system of church government. Conse- 
quently our Church Order always maintains the integrity and au- 
thority of the particular Churches. 

Now in keeping with the integrity and authority which our system 
attributes to the particular Churches, each Church has its own field 
or territory. In former years neighboring Churches set up definite 
boundary lines. Removal across the boundary line also meant removal 
from the Church to the Church of that neighborhood or community. 
Boundary lines are still held in honor in the Netherlands. The sys- 
tem of allotting certain territories to certain Churches and of main- 
taining ecclesiastical boundary lines doubtless has much in its favor. 
Without the maintenance of boundary lines the territory of one 
Church overlaps that of another. Think of our situation, for instance, 
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There is an overlapping and crisscrossing 
of territories there which is confusing. And the same situation ob- 
tains for almost every other center with more than one of our 
Churches. This does not make for good order. One congregation 
often grows too fast for its own good and another sustains losses in 
membership which are uncalled for. Very often personal attachment 
to a building or a Minister impel our people to remain with a certain 
Church although logically they belong elsewhere. This is true not 
only for our urban Churches but also for our rural Churches. And 
this overcrowxis some Churches and weakens others. It also makes 
for an unwholesome spirit of competition. Young people particularly 
are tempted to roam from Church to Church, especially for the eve- 
ning service. Some seldom attend their own Church for the second 
service. The most popular Minister becomes the drawing card for 
the crowd. 

But we Americans love our liberties, and it is doubtful, now that 
we have operated under the present system for so many years, 
whether any move to improve our situation would be well received 
by the bulk of our membership. However that may be, the system of 
well defined territories and certain boundary lines was certainly in 
the minds of our fathers when they wrote Article 15 and ruled that 
no one should be permitted to preach and to administer the Sacra- 
ments in another Church without the consent of the Consistory of 
that Church. This does not refer to the administration of Word and 
Sacraments in the church building of the congregation concerned. 
The fact that each Consistory has full control over its own pulpit, and 
that none can preach in the services of a certain congregation with- 
out consent of its Consistory, is so self-evident that it needs no ex- 
pression in the Church Order. Article 15 goes much further. It rec- 
ognizes the rights of a Church over its own territory, and makes it 
unlawful for one of our Ministers to preach within the limits of its 
territory without consent of the Consistory concerned. 

Sometimes it happens that our Ministers preach in Churches of 
other denominations. Aside from all other questions as to the ad- 
visability of this practice, this preaching for other Churches should 
not take place by any of our men without consent of the Consistory 
of that place. In case the city or town has more than one of our 
Churches the nearest Church or Churches should be asked for this 
approval and permission. If at some future time we should get a 
new redaction of our Church Order this matter might well be spe- 
cifically named in Article 15. 


74 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Our Synod of 1904 ruled that a Consistory should not admit to its 
pulpits a Minister not of our own denomination except when it is con- 
vinced that such a Minister is of sound Reformed confession. (Art. 
125, 5.) And still stronger, Synod of 1882 ruled that Ministers who 
in doctrine and church government, and with respect to secret socie- 
ties, take the position that is held by our Churches, may on occasion 
occupy our pulpits (Art. 58). These rulings are at present doubtless 
more timely than they were when they were made. They should 
not be forgotten or ignored. If they are we may feel ourselves obli- 
gated at some future day to accept even more drastic rules. The 
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands have found it advisable to ap- 
point a Synodical Committee, without the approval of which no Min- 
ister belonging to another denomination is permitted to preach in 
said Churches. 

Synod of 1904 also ruled that a Candidate as to his membership is 
under the supervision of the Consistory of the Church to which he 
belongs, but that with regard to his labors as a Candidate he is sub- 
ject to the supervision of the Classis in whose district he labors. 
(Art. 126.) This really should be corrected to conclude as follows: 
. . . . of the Classis in whose district he has his membership, whether 
he labors within the boundaries of this particular Classis or not.” 
Of course, he is subject to the supervision of the local Church where 
he labors temporarily, and if that Church detects something wrong 
in doctrine or life, the Consistory of that Church should notify, as a 
last resort, his Classis, which Classis would then have the right to 
revoke his license to exhort, and his candidature for the Ministry. 


ARTICLE XVI. 

The office of the Minister is to continue in prayer and in the 
ministry of the Word , to dispense the Sacraments, to watch 
over his brethren , the Elders and Deacons, as well as the Con- 
gregation, and finally, with the Elders, to exercise church dis- 
cipline and to see to it that everything is done decently and in 
good order. 

THE DUTIES OF MINISTERS. 

It should be noted that Article 16 speaks of the duty, work or task 
of the Minister, and not of the office of the ministry as such. The 
word office as used in our Church Order sometimes refers to the offi- 
cial, authoritative position of the office-bearers in the Church of 
Christ, and sometimes to the duties of the office, and not to the office 
itself. Article 35 even speaks of “the office of the president” of an 
ecclesiastical gathering, when it clearly refers to the work of the 
president. Now the content of Article 16 clearly indicates that it has 
reference to the work which a Minister should do and not to his offi- 
cial position. 

1. The task of the Ministers as Ministers. 

The work of the ministry as mentioned in this article is in the 
main three-fold. First: the service of the Word, consisting of preach- 
ing and teaching with appropriate prayers. Secondly: the service of 
the Sacraments, as seals upon the Word. Thirdly: the service of 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


• 75 

supervision. Strictly speaking the service of supervision does not be- 
long to the task of the ministry, i.e., to the prophetic office in Christ’s 
Church, but to the task of the Eldership, or the ruling office in 
Christ’s Church. But the Ministers do not only represent Christ as 
to His prophetic office, but also as to His ruling or pastoral office 
(cf. Eph. 4:11). Consequently Article 16 sneaks of supervision and 
discipline and the maintenance of good order, though these clearly 
belong to the domain of the Elders. 

What does the phrase, “to continue in prayer and in the ministry 
of the Word” teach us? This phrase refers to congregational wor- 
ship, of which two elements are mentioned, namely, prayer and 
preaching. It teaches us: 

(1' That the Word of God, God’s revelation of Himself as Creator 
and Saviour and all that it implies, must be preached. Mere lectures 
and discourses, though very good and altogether in place elsewhere, 
may never supplant the Word of God in the hour of Worship. 

This point capnot be stressed too strongly in our day. Addresses 
on secular subjects may not take the place of sermons based on God’s 
own Word. Neither should we be satisfied if the Ministers should de- 
liver excellent religious addresses. Topical sermons are very often 
little more than religious discourses, in which the preacher’s opinion 
looms up large. What we should demand without wavering, is exposi- 
tion and application of God’s own Word. Religious discourses are 
often much more popular with the crowd than regular sermons. But 
in the interest of the spiritual welfare of our members and the future 
of our Churches we should continue to present expository sermons. 
Of course this does not mean that our sermons should not be prac- 
tical. A good sermon expounds and applies God’s special revelation. 

(2) That inasmuch as man is completely dependent upon God and 
owes Him full allegiance, prayer should constitute an important part 
in every service. 

(3) That he who fills this office is a Minister. That is to say, he 
is a servant. But not of the people. Of the Word of God and of God 
standing back of His Word. 

(4) That this service of the Word must continue without interrup- 
tion. Ministers must preach the Word with due regularity. 

It is worthy of note that this article does not mention the cate- 
chizing of children and young people, family visitation, sick-visiting, 
and the solemnization of marriages. None should infer from the fact 
that these matters are not specifically mentioned here, that they do 
not belong to the duties of the ministry. No one who might be in- 
clined to defend this position could legitimately and successfully ap- 
peal to Article 16 of the Church Order. For this article does not mean 
to give an exhaustive enumeration of all ministerial duties; it merely 
indicates the essential responsibilities of the ministry. As both Jansen 
and Bouwman state, Article 16 is not limitative in character, but 
rather prescriptive. 

As to catechism work, this certainly belongs to the Minister’s field 
of operation. The teaching of a catechism class is essentially admin- 
istration of the Word, just as preaching is. Only, catechism teaching 
is a specialized form of the administration of the Word, adapted to 
the needs of the youth. Its purpose is the indoctrination of covenant 
children so that they may, by the grace of God, confess Christ heart- 
ily, and serve Him loyally and correctly as well informed believers. 
This work belongs in the first place to those Elders who are called 
to labor in the Word, i.e., to the Ministers. 

As to home visitation work and sick-visiting, in this work the Min- 


76 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ister brings the Word of God, not publicly as at congregational wor- 
ship, but privately. Not that only, for in the work of home visitation 
and sick calling the Minister goes also in his capacity as pastor, i.e., 
as Elder. It may be argued that the work under discussion is largely 
supervisory, and that therefore the overseers, that is the Elders, 
should do this work. With this we agree. But Ministers have a share 
in the Elders’ work, and as such are certainly called upon to perform 
this work as much as their time will permit. Such is also for their 
own good as Ministers. It helps them to know the needs of their 
people. 

Regarding the solemnization of marriages, the Ministers of our 
Churches really occupy a two-fold position at these ceremonies. Ac- 
cording to the laws of our states any regularly ordained Minister 
has the right to unite in marriage those who have been properly li- 
censed to marry. When a Minister performs a marriage ceremony 
he is acting for the state and insofar as a state official. But the 
Church of Christ also has a great interest in the marriages contracted 
by its young people. Consequently, our Churches have an official form 
for the solemnization of marriage, and Article 70 of the Church Order 
states that it is proper that the matrimonial state be confirmed in 
the presence of Christ’s Church and stipulates that Consistories shall 
attend to this. Now when the marriage takes place in the presence 
of the congregation, at a service previously announced and under the 
supervision of the Consistory, then the Minister not only acts for the 
state, but also for the Church in his capacity as Minister of the Gos- 
pel. This is therefore also very definitely ministerial work. 

Why may only lawfully ordained Ministers officiate at the service 
of the Word and of the Sacraments? Because the Scriptures so teach. 
To such as had been ordained to office Christ committed the charge 
of Matt. 28:19, “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit.” 

In the Epistles those are constantly told to preach the Word, who 
had been previously ordained to office. We read of no baptisms but 
by such as were in the office of the ministry in some form or other. 

Should men who are not in office and who in some instances do 
not belong to any Church anywhere, be permitted to preach the Word 
in our Churches? No, this would be decidedly against our rules of 
agreement, the Church Order. 

Does it make any material difference whether such takes place by 
permission of the Consistory some week-day evening, or under the 
auspices of the Consistory during the hour of worship on Sunday? 
No, the one as well as the other is against the rule and against the 
best interest of our Churches. 

2. The task of Ministers as overseers. 

What precedes refers to the prophetic aspect of the ministerial 
office. As noted, the ministerial office also partakes of the task of 
the Pastors, ghepherds, Overseers, or Elders. All these names apply 
to the Elders’ office. We now come to that work of Ministers which 
is theirs in their capacity as Elders. The work of Elders will come 
up for consideration in Article 23. Yet a few words regarding pas- 
toral work as it applies particularly to the Ministers will not be amiss. 

First of all then Ministers must watch over the confession and lives 
of their fellow office-bearers, the Elders and Deacons. They must en- 
courage, instruct or admonish them faithfully. This same oversight 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


77 


must likewise be exercised over the whole flock. But pertaining to 
their fellow office-bearers it is specialized. 

The pastoral work of a Minister is very difficult, but also very im- 
portant. The Minister that fails to perform this phase of his pastoral 
work is inefficient at best. It requires true piety, love, patience, self- 
denial, tact, fearlessness, and certainly a thorough knowledge of Holy 
Writ and an understanding of human nature as affected by sin in 
both regenerate and unregenerate, in old as well as in young. 

Secondly, the pastoral work of a Minister includes the exercise of 
church discipline. The expression here refers to church discipline in 
a narrower sense, i.e., excommunication and the official admonition 
which precedes it. Church discipline in the broader sense includes all 
protective and corrective pastoral work. Of discipline in this nar- 
rower sense, the Church Order speaks in detail in Articles 71-80. 

Thirdly, the Minister must “see to it that everything is done de- 
cently and in good order.” In this phrase the Church Order specifies 
particularly what is clearly implied in the general task of an over- 
seer. It refers, no doubt, to the government of the Church in general, 
such as strict honesty, and the elimination of arbitrariness and par- 
tiality in the exercise of church discipline, and the promotion of good 
conduct at church gatherings. 

If anywhere, then surely due order must be observed in the Church 
of God. And all things should be done decently, or honorably. That 
is, all things should be done in such a way that they will reflect cred- 
itably upon the Church, and will enhance the honor of Christ, the 
Head of the Church. 

What are some of the things Ministers are expected to counteract 
and forbid? Harshness, wilfulness, partiality, impatience and insin- 
cerity in matters of discipline. Angry words, domineering, election- 
eering, clique-spirit, etc., at church gatherings. 

3. The matter of assistants. 

There are in our denomination those who perform work which is 
really ministerial in character. There are first of all those, though 
not ordained to the ministry, who nevertheless at times take the lead 
in congregational worship. We call them exhorters. The Dutch 
speak of “oefenaars.” At times when the Church of Christ experi- 
enced a great dearth of regular preachers these exhorters have ren- 
dered invaluable services. Exhorters hold no office, though often they 
are or have been Elders. They are men who, in the providence of God, 
have special gifts for exhortation, a thorough knowledge of the 
Bible and our Reformed confession, and ability to compose and speak. 

As will be realized the regular seminary students of the middler 
and senior years at our seminary at Grand Rapids form a very spe- 
cial class of exhorters for whom special rules have been adopted. 

The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands adopted a few brief 
rules regarding the appointment of exhorters. They are in substance 
as follows: 

“The request to examine a brother in order to grant him permission 
to exhort shall always proceed from the Church which desires his 
services as exhorter. Said request shall be addressed to the Classis 
to which this Church belongs. This Classis shall have the right to 
extend the privilege of exhorting to the brother for whom the request 
is made, not only for the Church making the request, but also, if it 
so desires, for all the Churches of the Classis, but not for the 
Churches outside of the Classis. If a Church belonging to another 
Classis should desire the services of the same brother, then the Classis 


78 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of that Church shall judge if and how said brother shall be re-exam- 
ined by it. But in no case shall he be permitted to exhort in any 
Church unless its Classis has first granted him permission” (Synod 
of ’s Gravenhage, 1914, Art. 109). A bit more remains to be said 
regarding these ministerial helpers when we discuss Article 20. 

A second class of assistants to the Ministers are the so-called 
“readers.” Shortly after the Reformation many Churches had no 
regular Ministers. To assist needy Churches somewhat, men were 
appointed and sent to read sermons and to lead various groups of 
believers in public worship. As time progressed and Ministers be- 
came available these services became less necessary. Readers are 
seldom sent out by our Churches. Our Detroit Church, however, has 
often delegated one of its members, usually an Elder, to read a ser- 
mon for a group of believers in Windsor, Canada. Consistories still 
appoint readers, but as a rule only to read sermons at the regular 
Sunday services whilst the Minister is absent from his pulpit or the 
Church is vacant. Usually all Elders who have sufficient ability for 
this work are appointed to take their turn at “reading services.” 
Churches within easy reach of emeritus Ministers, theological profes- 
sors, theological students, etc., seldom have “reading services.” 

Readers need not necessarily be Consistory members. If none of 
the Elders or Deacons have a suitable voice for reading or ability to 
read well in public, some other brother in the Church may be ap- 
pointed. 

Readers are not allowed to bring their own message, nor to alter 
that which they read essentially. They act as assistants to the Min- 
ister, and as such, should read what the Minister himself has written, 
or what some other trustworthy Reformed Minister has written. The 
Consistory should know what is being read at reading services, and 
no book of sermons should be used which has not been approved of 
by the Consistory. It is well for the reader to announce the author 
of the sermon he is to read. Many readers will prefer to use one of 
the approved prayers for the services which they must lead, rather 
than using their own words. These prayers may be found in the 
Psalter Hymnal. 

Another class of assistants to our Ministers are our non-ministerial 
Catechism teachers. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
the Churches in the Netherlands often appointed men not serving in 
the Consistory to act as sick-visitors and catechism teachers. This 
practice was common in the large city Churches. These catechism 
teachers and sick-visitors were not appointed before their knowledge, 
faithfulness, doctrinal purity and piety had been investigated. Only 
those who proved worthy were appointed. As a rule it is best to 
appoint Consistory members as catechism teachers. Then the Con- 
sistory may be sure that it is being served by consecrated trustworthy 
men. But in some Churches this may be impossible. Then let the 
Consistory appoint others well qualified for this work. But let great 
care be exercised in the appointment of these assistants in the min- 
isterial work. No one should be appointed unless the Consistory is 
convinced that he is doctrinally well-informed and sound. All lesson 
books, etc., should be selected by the Consistory, and a definite sys- 
tem of supervision should be devised. 

Another large group of members constantly doing ministerial work 
in our Churches are our Sunday School teachers. Sunday Schools are 
found in most of our Churches. The influence of our Sunday School 
should not be underestimated. It is therefore very advisable that the 
Consistories appoint teachers directly, and not from a list suggested 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


79 


by the Sunday School teachers’ meetings. And far less should the 
teachers’ meetings select and appoint provisionally, and then ask the 
Consistory for its approval. The Sunday School is an influential force 
and so it is very important who the teachers are. Only those who 
are well-informed, doctrinally sound, and in full unquestioned sym- 
pathy with our distinctive position as a Christian Reformed denomi- 
nation, should be permitted to teach our youth the year around, and 
very often year after year. In the appointment of Sunday School 
teachers the Consistory should therefore be altogether free. 

The superintendent and his assistant should both be Consistory 
members, preferably Elders, so that there may be a very close contact 
between the Consistory and the Sunday School. Let them be ap- 
pointed annually. It might be a good plan to appoint the teachers 
annually, so that inferior and undesirable teachers might be elimi- 
nated the easier. Never should the Sunday School teachers meeting 
carry on its work independently. There should be close harmony be- 
tween the Consistory and the men and women that have been ap- 
pointed to instruct the youth of our Church. It goes without saying 
that the Consistory should always decide which lesson material the 
School is to follow, which ages are to be taught, etc. 


ARTICLE XVII. 

Among the Ministers of the Word equality shall be main- 
tained with respect to the duties of their office and also in other 
matters as far as possible according to the judgment of the 
Consistory, and if necessary, of the Classis; which equality shall 
also be maintained in the case of the Elders and the Deacons. 

EQUALITY OF OFFICE-BEARERS 

Article 17 puts all hierarchical tendencies in our Churches under 
the ban. Hierarchical Churches are governed by various officers, vary- 
ing in rank and authority. The most perfect hierarchical system has 
been developed by the Church of Rome with the Bishop of Rome, the 
Pope, at its head. The disciples of Jesus already showed hierarchical 
tendencies when they “disputed one with the other on the way, who 
was the greatest.” But Jesus told them, “If any man would be first, 
he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:34,35). At an- 
other occasion Jesus admonished them: “But be not ye called Rabbi; 
for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). 

1. Equality of office-bearers as stipulated in Article 17. 

Equality amongst Ministers is stipulated in Article 17, although 
the principle is applied with equal force to the Elders and Deacons, 
as the conclusion of the article also clearly states. 

The article refers to the relationship and duties of office-bearers to- 
ward their fellow office-bearers within the congregation which they 
are serving. That is to say Article 17 does not say that equality must 
be maintained amongst the Ministers, Elders, and Deacons of various 
Churches, but of the local Church to which they happen to belong, 
and in which they are serving together. 

The principle of equality also applies beyond the confines of the 
local Church, but Article 17 does not concern itself with this phase 


80 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of the question. Article 41, for example, clearly posits the principle 
of equality of office-bearers beyond the limits of the local congre- 
gation. 

The fact that the article speaks of Ministers (plural), might lead 
some to think that equality at denominational meetings and in de- 
nominational interests is meant. However, let us remember that in 
Holland, where our Church Order originated, many Churches have 
more than one Minister. In the larger cities of Holland the Reformed 
believers are organized into one large Church, having one Consistory, 
but several Ministers, and several church buildings perhaps. We have 
not followed this system but have consistently organized separate 
Churches as the need required. Consequently with us each Church 
has but one Minister and but one building. To this rule we have had 
an occasional exception. So, for instance, the Churches of Midland 
Park, New Jersey, and Denver, Colorado, each had two Ministers for 
a number of years. More recently, the Fourth Church of Chicago 
called a second Minister. (There are a few more Churches which 
really have more than one Minister. Most of our missionaries, for 
instance, are called by some local Church. They are officially con- 
nected with the calling Church, but in actuality we seldom regard 
them as such, and seldom are they accorded the privileges to which 
they have a right as Ministers of their Church.) 

It is hardly necessary to say that Article 17 refers to official 
duties and privileges. When a Church has more than one Minister 
it can not be expected that they will be alike in all respects. One 
may be more able than the other. One may labor more zealously 
than another. One Minister may show greater sympathy and tact- 
fulness than another. It is but natural that one is held in higher 
esteem than another, and that one is called to work of a greater re- 
sponsibility and another not. Consequently this article stipulates 
that “equality shall be maintained with respect to the duties of their 
offices.” The bold-face words refer to preaching, administration of 
the Sacraments, catechizing, presiding at Consistory meetings, etc. In 
the performance of these duties equality shall be maintained. Thus 
the Church Order rules out the possibility of one Minister assuming 
the role of superintendent or dictator over others. Assistant Pastors, 
working as subordinates under other Ministers, are unknown in our 
Churches. 

Which “other matters” does this article refer to? To such matters 
as maintenance, esteem for the office held, mode of address, etc. Re- 
garding Ministers and their salaries, no personal favoritism should 
ever be tolerated. Each Minister of a given local Church must be 
honorably supported. This does not mean that equal amounts should 
be paid to all. The Minister with a large family will need more than 
one with a small family, etc. But all should be dealt with, with equal 
fairness. 

2. Reasons for equality. 

We have neither example nor commandment in Holy Writ which 
would support inequality. True, the Apostles did exercise a certain 
authority over the Ministers, Elders, and Deacons, and they did have 
privileges and duties wanting to the office-bearers in the local 
Churches. But nowhere do we read of Elders and Deacons being ele- 
vated in authority and honor above other Elders and Deacons. Nor 
of one Minister having the official preeminence above other Ministers. 

Christ is the one head of His Church. All office-bearers are but 
prophets, priests, and kings under Him, acting with equal authority 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


81 


and equal rights, even as also all the Apostles stood on par as far 
as their duties and rights were concerned. It is true that Peter in 
many respects was the foremost of the disciples. But this preemi- 
nence of Peter was not preeminence of authority, as Rome holds, but 
merely a preeminence of ability and esteem. 

The Synod of 1581, the very Synod which incorporated the article 
under discussion into our Church Order, received overtures from 
more than one quarter to appoint inspectors or superintendents. But 
the Synod decided not to do so inasmuch as this step would be “on- 
noodich ende zorghelick,” i.e., “unnecessary and not without danger.” 
Unnecessary inasmuch as the various Classes and Particular Synods 
were well able to supervise the Churches. And not without danger, 
inasmuch as it tended to elevate one office-bearer above another as 
to authority exercised. The Churches had suffered too much under a 
corrupt hierarchical Church to venture again in the direction of hier- 
archism. These overtures for superintendents may have occasioned 
the adoption of Article 17, which provides for equality amongst office- 
bearers. 

It is generally admitted that there are other practical considera- 
tions which make it highly desirable that equality be maintained. In- 
equality easily produces wilfulness, “boss-ism”, and abuse. And these 
are never more out of place and obnoxious than in the Church of 
Christ. Inequality also tends to promote jealousy and an unholy 
rivalry to the damage of the Church and the dishonor of God. 

3. The conditional clause: as far as possible. 

But it is also added, “as far as possible.” Our Church Order is 
not a rigid book of law. It means to regulate church life according 
to God’s Word and the best interest of the Churches. Now in certain 
matters ironclad rigidity might work severe damage and defeat the 
very purpose of the rule concerned, namely, the honor of God and the 
welfare of Christ’s Church. And so we find the modifying phrase, “as 
far as possible,” attached to this rule. This is altogether proper. 
For example: Supposing a certain Church has more than one Min- 
ister. Because of advanced age one of them finds it extremely hard 
to preach regularly and every Sunday, but pastoral work he is still 
able to perform with comparative ease. Why should not the Con- 
sistory in such a case release said Minister in part of his share in 
conducting congregational worship, and add to his task as sick-visi- 
tor ? Or supposing a man has excellent qualification for the eldership, 
but reading a sermon in public is extremely hard for him, and the 
Church is not edified when he is forced to take his turn. Why should 
not the Consistory excuse him from this extra task ? 

And so there may be numerous conditions which demand that the 
division of labor be somewhat unequal, without an actual infringe- 
ment upon the principle of equality of office-bearers in God’s Church. 
As soon as we would begin to make unnecessary and arbitrary dif- 
ferences, the principle of equality would be violated. The exception 
does not do so. 

Who decides as to each office-bearer’s share in the common task? 
The Consistory, inasmuch as this is the governing body in each 
Church. This matter is therefore not left to individuals or groups of 
individuals, but the Consistory as a body judges and determines. 

If in any case the Consistory cannot decide, or if the party or 
parties concerned are dissatisfied with the ruling of the Consistory, 
then as in all other cases, the matter can be brought for decision to 
Classis. 


82 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 
ARTICLE XVIII. 

The office of the Professors of Theology is to expound, the 
Holy Scripture and to -vindicate sound doctrine against heresies 
and errors. 

THE TASK OF THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORS 

The word office in Article 18 refers to work, task, duties. What we 
have said concerning the use of the word office under Article 16 is 
true also for the present article. 

Our Dutch redaction of the Church Order (1914) reads as follows: 
“Het ambt der Doctoren of Professoren in de Theologie is, de Heilige 
Schriftuur uit te leggen, en de zuivere leer tegen de ketterijen en 
dolingen voor te staan.” It will be noted that our English transla- 
tion of this official Dutch text has dropped the term “Doctoren,” i.e., 
Ddctors. This translation was approved by Synod of 1920 so that 
we now have a slight variation between the official Dutch and the 
official English text of Article 18. Happily, the matter is not at all 
serious. Practically it makes very little difference whether or not 
this historical reading was maintained. On the other hand, variations 
in two official texts of the Church Order should not occur. 

1. The historical background of Article 18. 

Article 18 clearly refers to our Professors of Theology. It states 
very briefly what the brethren who teach at our Seminary must do. 
In other words, this article does not seek to control and regulate the 
work of teachers of theology in general, but it means to indicate the 
task of those who have been appointed for this work by our own 
churches. 

Historically this article really goes back as far as Calvin. Calvin 
held that it was the duty of those that had been appointed to teach 
theology to expound the Bible and to defend the true interpretation 
and doctrine of the Bible over against those that are in error. He 
even favored the thought that teachers of theology should constitute 
a separate office, though it should also be said that Calvin saw a very 
close relation between “Pastors and Teachers.” Says he: “But all 
these are embraced in the pastoral office” (cf. Institutes, Book IV, 
Chapter III, 4). 

The first Synod of Holland (or Convent of Wezel, 1568) followed 
Calvin. Its description of the task of “Doctors,” (the term then used 
from the Latin doctor meaning teacher), agrees with that of Calvin. 
This Convention, like he, regarded these Doctors as ecclesiastical 
office-bearers next to the Ministers. However, as Jansen points out, 
the next three Synods of Holland, 1571, 1574, 1578, are all silent as 
to the office of the Doctors of Theology. This the author named ex- 
plains from the fact that by this time the protestant State had or- 
ganized schools at which theology was taught and at which Minis- 
ers were trained. The Synods of 1581, 1586, 1618-’19 again include 
the office in their Church Orders, but clearly refer not to an ecclesi- 
astical office in its strict sense, but rather to teachers of theology 
at the various public universities whose work the Churches were thus 
endeavoring to control. In the Church Order of Dort (l^lS-’^), the 
original of our own Church Order (1914), the expression, “Doctor 
or Teacher of Theology”, is therefore at best a semi-ecclesiastical one. 
The professors to which it refers were not even ordained, unless those 
appointed happened to be Ministers previous to their appointment 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 83 

(cf. in this connection what we find even in our own Church Order, 
Art. 4). 

Now, in our redaction of the Church Order (1914), due to radically 
different conditions, Article 18 was made to apply to the professors 
of theology at our own seminary. 

2. The office of our professors of theology a specialized form of the 
ministerial office. 

Is the office of our professors of theology a specialized form of 
the ministerial office? Yes, for note: Christ was annointed to a three- 
fold office, namely, prophet, priest, and king. In harmony with this 
fact Christ’s representatives for the O. T. Church were three in kind: 
prophets, priests, and kings. Likewise, in harmony with Christ’s 
three-fold office the N. T. Church offices are three in number: Min- 
isters, Deacons, and Elders, representing Christ respectively as our 
great Prophet, our merciful High Priest, and our eternal King. 

This divine plan simply leaves no room for a fourth office. Neither, 
indeed, does the work of professors of theology demand that we con- 
sider theirs a separate office. In fact, the work of professors of the- 
ology is identical with the work of all Ministers, only, the work of 
the professor is specialized. But this does not alter the fact that our 
seminary professors are actually Ministers of the Gospel. 

3. Why the expounding of the Scriptures is stressed in this article. 

Theology is Based on Scripture. It is the one source of knowledge 
and the one standard of truth for the science of theology. Neither 
man’s experience and contemplation, nor general revelation can con- 
stitute the true source for our theological knowledge. Only through 
the Bible do we learn to know God correctly. It is God’s special in- 
fallible revelation of Himself. And he who makes this universe, God's 
general revelation, or man’s experience, his object for the study of 
God is sure to err, for sin has marred God’s general revelation, and 
the natural man is spiritually dead so that his understanding of spir- 
itual things is blurred at best, and he cannot know God as He is. 
And even after regenerating grace is ours, then yet it can not be 
said that the true knowledge of naradise has been fully restored to 
us. And so special revelation, the Holy Scriptures, is indispensable 
to us. 

But these Holy Scriptures must be expounded, explained. The 
deep things of God are revealed to us in human language. Moreover, 
they are revealed to us in the language of the dav in which the 
various parts of the Bible were written, a language belonging to a 
people differing radically from us in habits and ways of living. 

Moreover, many profound truths are revealed to us repeatedly in 
Holy Writ, both in Old and New Testaments. Not that we find mean- 
ingless repetition in Holy Writ. Far from it, for the profound truths 
of God, the cardinal truths of Christianity revealed to us in the 
Bible, are not simple in their significance, but very often complex. 
They are somewhat like a beautiful valley landscape which may be 
viewed from many points, and which at each new point reveals new 
beauty. The sum total of the beauty of that valley simply cannot be 
seen from one hilltop. So, for instance, the significance of the truth 
of God’s absolute sovereignty is not exhausted in one verse or even 
one chapter of Holy Writ. The significance of that great truth for 
God Himself is spoken of in one place; as to its significance for the 
world of sin, in another; as to its significance for God’s children in 


84 THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

still another; and as to its cosmic, universal significance, in still an- 
other, etc. 

Now, our professors are called to expound God’s Word. They must 
endeavor to translate correctly; to establish the historical and psy- 
chological setting; to determine the logical thought process; to bring 
together all that the Scriptures reveal concerning a particular truth, 
so that the true significance of the several parts may be understood, 
and so that the full significance of the sum total may appear. 

What qualifications then are required in a good expounder of Holy 
Writ? Several. He should have at least a good working knowledge 
of Hebrew and Greek. He should know the history, customs, institu- 
tions, literary modes of expression, bent of mind or psychological 
make-up of Bible peoples. He should have ability to think logically. 
He should, of course, have a thorough knowledge of the whole Bible. 
And above all, he should have a sanctified heart and mind. For un- 
less one believes in the supernatural character of Holy Writ, unless 
one has the indwelling light of the Holy Spirit, unless one has faith, 
love, and devotion, one will never sense the true significance of Holy 
Writ, no matter how bright one’s intellect or how thorough one’s 
factual knowledge may be. 

4. To which heresies and errors does the Church Order here refer? 

By heresies we mean false religions. And under the heading of 
false religions we place first of all Judaism, Mohammedanism, and 
all pagan religions. But under this heading we also place Neo- 
paganism (Unitarianism, Modernism, Liberalism), Russellism, Chris- 
tian Science, Theosophism, Lodgeism, etc. These are all perversions 
of true Christianity and constitute a constant and very dangerous 
anti-Christian 'force. 

By errors the Church Order means to indicate digressive move- 
ments and doctrines within the pale of the Christian Church. Errors 
in this sense are impure and wrong conceptions of the truth of God, 
which weaken the Church and dishonor God, but which do not deny 
the essence of the central truth of Christianity, namely, sin and re- 
demption through Christ. Under this heading we find Roman Catho- 
licism, Anabaptism, Methodism, etc. Or, to put it differently, all 
tenets which deny: Infant Baptism, the Covenant of Grace, Total 
Depravity, Election, Perseverance of Saints, etc., etc. 

When and where should our professors vindicate sound doctrine 
against heresies and errors? First of all in the class-room and be- 
fore their students. This is so self-evident that we shall not stop to 
discuss. But Art. 18 also implies that our professors must contend 
for the faith and against heresy and error outside of the classroom, 
i.e., in the Churches from the pulpits; through lectures, church 
papers, books, pamphlets, etc. There is a crying need for leadership 
of this kind. The very future of our churches and the maintenance of 
true Christianity and of our Calvinistic conceptions amongst us make 
it imperative! 

Regarding the appointment of theological professors the decisions 
of Synod, 1930 are of note. They are as follows: 

“1. When a theological professor is to be appointed, Curatorium 
shall present a nomination to Synod. The nominees shall preferably 
be ordained men that have had some experience in the ministry of the 
Word. The nomination shall not be made until a conference has been 
held with the Theological Faculty. It must be made in time so that it 
may appear in our church papers at least twice before Synod meets. 
To this end the Executive Committee of the Curatorium shall prepare 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


85 


a proposal in time for the meeting of the full Curatorium in May. 
When Curatorium convenes, the first duty shall be the making of the 
nomination and its publication. In order to lengthen the time for pos- 
sible objections to reach Synod, the election shall take place at Synod 
as late as possible, and certainly not before the twentieth of June. 

2. As in the past, a professor will be appointed for a term of two 
years; in case of reappointment, this will be for a term of six years; 
if again reappointed at the completion of his second term, he will be 
appointed indefinitely.” (Synod, 1930, Art. 23, pp. 20, 21) 

Previous to this the Synod of 1924 had already decided as follows: 
“It shall be the rule to appoint only men who have prepared them- 
selves in a special way for the branch which they will have to teach. 
In case one or more years of special preparation are necessary, Synod 
shall appoint such a person with the understanding that he will re- 
sume his duties after one or two years.” (Synod, 1924, Art. 26, p. 21) 
It should not be forgotten that Synodical decisions of this kind are 
no laws of the Medes and Persians. It is well to have some general 
understanding as to the mode of procedure to be followed in matters 
of this kind. However, time and circumstances do not always permit 
rigid adherence to general decisions. If necessary the rules just 
quoted may be suspended. Each Synod must in the last analysis use 
its own judgment. 


ARTICLE XIX 

The Churches shall exert themselves , as far as necessary , 
that there may be students supported by them to be trained 
for the Ministry of the Word. 

SUPPORTING STUDENTS FOR THE MINISTRY 

The material of Article 19 follows logically upon that of Article 18. 
The previous article has indicated the task of professors of theology, 
the present article makes provision for an adequate number of 
students. 

1. The purpose of Article 19. 

Without the regular ministry of the Word our Churches cannot be 
expected to flourish. Shepherdless Churches are Churches abnormally 
situated. God has so constituted our spiritual life for the Church 
militant, that constant care and nourishment are necessary. Conse- 
quently Ministers of the Gospel must ever be available. 

Now, the first requirement for the ministry is no doubt that one 
have true piety and whole-hearted consecration. Next we would men- 
tion certain natural qualifications and abilities without which one can- 
not labor effectively in this sacred work. But besides all this one must 
have acquired a generous knowledge of God’s Word and of theology in 
general before he can work effectively as a Minister. 

But to go to school year after year takes a great deal of money. 
And so it has often happened that but few young men studied for the 
ministry, inasmuch as but few could afford to go to school. At the 
same time many young men of good ability and splendid qualifications 
and with an earnest desire to serve God in the Ministry, were anxious 


86 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


and ready to go. All of which simply means that many Churches 
would be without ministerial pastors year after year, while some of 
the best qualified young men were not available to the Churches be- 
cause they could not afford to go to school to prepare themselves. 

And so to assure the Churches of an adequate supply of well-quali- 
fied Ministers, the Church Order provides that ‘‘The Churches shall 
exert themselves, as far as necessary, that there may be students 
supported by them to be trained for the Ministry of the Word.” 

The first regular Synod of the Churches of Holland (Emden, 1571) 
already provided that several students should be supported for the 
ministry just as soon as the Churches, then yet dispersed in England 
and Germany by reason of the persecution, should have been restored 
in the homeland. Already the year before Mamix van St. Aldegonde 
had written to the refugee Churches in England concerning this mat- 
ter. He wrote concerning a “crying need for students,” and urges the 
Churches to begin the sunnort of needy students as soon as possible. 

At first Holland had no theological schools of its own. Those that 
studied for the ministry would go to Wittenburg, Geneva, Heidelberg, 
Zurich, or Basel. Others received some training from well-qualified 
Ministers. Eventually, however, the University of Leyden was or- 
ganized, and this became the seat of learning which trained many men 
for the ministry. As conditions became more settled other schools 
were added. More than one Synod of that period dealt with the mat- 
ter of securing suitable and sufficient candidates for the ministry. But 
Article 19, as it read in those days, did not stipulate that the Churches 
had to support an adequate number of students for the ministry, but 
merely that the Churches should see to it that there would be a suffi- 
cient number of students for the ministry, which students were to 
receive aid from the government upon recommendation of the 
Churches. When Protestantism in the Netherlands became victorious 
many Roman Church lands and funds fell to the government. Out of 
this fund of Roman Church properties the government would pay 
aged Ministers, needy students, etc. (Let us remember that there was 
a very close connection between Church and State in these early days.) 
Until very recently our Student Funds were commonly known as E. P. 
B. Funds. This designation goes back to this period. Needy students 
were said to receive support ex bonis publicis, a Latin phrase meaning 
“out of 'the public goods,” the public goods being the former Roman 
Church properties referred to above. 

2. How our Christian Reformed Churches have carried out the pro- 
vision of Article 19. 

At first there was one common fund under the administration and 
control of Synod. This was when our Christian Reformed Churches 
were less numerous than now. But already in 1888 Synod decided that 
each Classis should have its own Student Fund. Thus it has been ever 
since. Every Classis has its own Student Fund and has full control 
over it. 

The first responsibility, let it be noted, regarding this matter, the 
Church Order clearly places at the door of the individual Churches. 
When this article was first formulated and adopted individual Church- 
es would sometimes actually send desirable young men from their own 
midst to school with the understanding that they serve such sending 
Churches upon completion of their course. But our Churches for 
practical reasons deemed it better to co-operate and to carry out the 
provisions of this article through their classical organizations. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


87 


3. Why the phrase “as far as necessary” is included in this article. 

The purpose of Article 19 is not to help needy students, but rather 

to help the Churches. Article 19 is a provision against a dangerous 
and detrimental dearth of Ministers. If, therefore, at any given 
time there is no scarcity of Ministers, the Churches need not exert 
themselves in this respect. 

This is, no doubt, a wise inclusion. And yet we should be careful 
not to interpret this proviso too mechanically. For should we merely 
aim to supply the existing demand for Ministers in Churches already 
established? We should have a larger outlook and, if financial con- 
ditions at all permit, we should always look for young men whom God 
has given the natural qualifications for the ministry and who at the 
same time excel in consecration and loyalty, and who have a desire to 
serve the Lord in the ministry, in order that new Churches may be 
established and the work of God’s Kingdom majr move forward con- 
stantly. 

During recent years several of our Classes decided not to accept ad- 
ditional students for the time being, inasmuch as funds were low and 
in view of the fact that several candidates were still available. If 
funds are low, as they naturally will be in years of economic depres- 
sions, and if the Churches are contributing to the best of their ability 
to these funds, then under the circumstances we can certainly justify 
the classical decisions referred to. 

But, on the other hand, inasmuch as circumstances change con- 
stantly, so that the causes for temporary so-called over-supplies may 
no longer be operative a few years later; and inasmuch as there is 
ever a crying need for able and consecrated preachers of the Gospel 
in every nook and comer of our great land; and inasmuch as the world 
at large in these days of doubt and dankness is desperately in need of 
Christ’s Gospel, therefore we should continue to encourage able and 
pious young men to study for the ministry, and we should assist them 
financially if need be. 

Besides all the foregoing, if God pleases to give us young men who 
are able and consecrated and who have an ardent and unselfish desire 
for the Ministry, then should we not look upon that fact as a great 
favor of God and as a grave responsibility toward Him ? And should 
we not make it possible for such young men to prepare themselves if 
this is at all within the range of possibilities? 

We should judge with great care, but if God calls, then let us be 
sure to answer. But, of course, while helping young men to prepare 
themselves for the ministry, let us by all means open fields of labor as 
far as conditions permit. 

4. How should Churches proceed in securing worthy applicants for 
support from their Student Funds? 

Many young men begin to study for the ministry entirely upon their 
own initiative. Elders and Deacons are nominated by the Consistory 
and chosen by fhe Church, and no man amongst us thinks of suggest- 
ing himself as a fit candidate for these offices. But when it comes to 
the ministerial office, men — and very young men and inexperienced 
men at that — are very often expected to take the first steps toward the 
office independently. We expect them to suggest themselves. We 
know that there are reasons for this. And yet we believe that the 
Churches from the very outset should play a larger part in the calling 
of a man to the ministry than has been the case in the past. This, we 
believe, will save many a man and many a Church from bitter ex- 
periences. 


88 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Consistories should be on the alert constantly. They should most 
certainly encourage worthy and able young men. Ministers especially 
should use their good influence, urging eminent young men of their 
flock to consider prayerfully the question whether perhaps God is call- 
ing them to the ministry, and encouraging and directing them if this 
desire and conviction is present. Such as are financially handicapped 
should be encouraged to apply to the Classis for aid. 

On the other hand ministers and Consistories should not hesitate 
to advise against any young men whom they deem to be lacking in any 
essential qualification. Our Classis should be very careful in their 
choice. They should not hesitate to turn down any and all applicants 
for aid. They should not merely go by a simple examination upon the 
floor of Classis and a formal recommendation of the young man’s Con- 
sistory. Perhaps trustworthy brethren who know the young man 
should be quizzed a great deal more than the young man himself. 

Intellectual ability and knowledge should be stressed. But char- 
acter and piety not a whit less. 

5. Should those who receive support from the Churches according to 
this article be required to repay? 

Some of our Classes do not require repayment, but others do. Again 
others require partial repayment. 

Article 19 certainly favors those Classes which do not require re- 
payment. The article does not provide for a loan fund, but it stipu- 
lates that the Churches shall try hard to secure worthy young men to 
study for the ministry, which young men are to be supported by the 
Churches during their years of study. Thus the article has been in- 
terpreted from the beginning, and so it is interpreted today. As is 
agreed by all, the article refers to worthy young men, who lack the 
necessary money to go to school. 

The fact that as a rule a Minister does not receive more money 
than he really needs for his family, car, books, etc., no doubt caused 
the Churches to provide for simple support of poor students and no 
more. 

Synod of 1928 went on record as favoring non-repavment. It sug- 
gested that the various Classes work in this direction. 

It is very true that some of our Ministers with good salaries and 
small families, during pre-depression years, received more salary than 
they actually needed for current expenses. But these were exceptional 
years for most of our people. And these years were exceptional for 
some Ministers also. 

We seriously question the propriety of the establishment of a semi- 
loan fund for needy students on the basis of Article 19. 

6. Who should receive aid from our Student Funds? 

Should only those receive aid who are ready to attend our own Cal- 
vin College or Calvin Seminary, or should we also extend support to 
those who must still do high school work ? The latter as well as the 
former. A very able and promising young man may not have finished 
his high school work by reason of circumstances. He may find it im- 
possible to finish his high school work without aid. Then why should 
any Classis exclude him from aid on that account? Of course, he 
should be expected to attend one of our Christian High Schools. 

Should our Classes ever extend financial aid to students who have 
finished the prescribed course at our own school, and who desire to do 
some post-graduate work elsewhere? Every case of this kind should 
be judged on its own merits. But if there be no urgent need for 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


89 


Ministers, i.e. if there are not a large number of vacant Churches 
anxiously waiting for candidates, and if the student can offer good 
reasons for his desire to do post-graduate work, then, generally speak- 
mg, his request should be granted. We should encourage our young 
men to prepare themselves for the Gospel ministry as adequately as 
possible. 

Of course, the Classis which supports him has a right to judge about 
the nature of his post-graduate studies and may decide at what school 
he is going to study. 

7. The problem of those who fail to enter the ministry and refuse 
to repay. 

Sometimes it happens that a man receives aid from a Student Fund 
but never finishes his course and never enters the ministry, and yet 
refuses to repay the moneys allowed. All Classes now require a writ- 
ten promise that they will repay the full amount received in case they 
do not enter the ministry. Does refusal to repay under these circum- 
stances constitute a censurable sin ? Beyond a doubt, it does. If need 
be a Classis would even be justified in seeking the aid of the civil laws 
to collect these Kingdom moneys. No one, who is in the position to 
restore money of this kind and under the circumstances noted, has any 
right to retain these moneys. 


ARTICLE XX 

Students who have received permission according to the rule 
in this matter y and persons who have according to Article 8 
been judged competent to be prepared for the Ministry of the 
Word, shall, for their own training, and for the sake of be- 
coming known to the Congregations, be allowed to speak a word 
of edification in the meetings for public worship. 

CONCERNING EXHORTERS 

1. The historical antecedents of Article 20. 

Originally, shortly after the Reformation, regularly organized theo- 
logical schools did not exist. Hence training for the ministry was a 
personal enterprise and irregular at best. 

The Wezelian Convention (1568) decided that Churches which had 
Ministers with exceptional ability should institute “proposition,” i.e., 
classes for men with gifts and desires for the ministry, which men 
should be trained in preaching, not publicly but privately. 

Synod of 1586 ruled that after having passed an examination “at 
the university or Classis,” students for the ministry at one of these 
training centers, were permitted to teach in the public assemblies of 
the Churches. The examination “at the university” referred no doubt 
to the theological faculties of the universities, which faculties were at 
first Reformed and reliable. The great Synod of Dort in its Church 
Order, however, went back to the Wezelian stipulation, ruling out the 
practice of what is sometimes called “student preaching.” Practice 
preaching was again limited to the confines of the private class rooms. 
Authorities explain this move in the light of the Arminian difficulties. 
Synod, for gocni reasons, no longer trusted the faculties at the univer- 
sities, and yet did not wish to stir up more trouble by limiting the ex- 


90 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


animation for “license to preach” to the Churches themselves through 
their Classes, and so discontinued the whole practice of “student 
preaching.” 

The Churches of the Secession in Holland, 1834, again permitted 
the practice. The Churches of the Doleantie, 1886, (the second seces- 
sion movement under leadership of Kuyper and others) did not favor 
the practice. In the united Churches, the Gereformeerde Kerken, the 
practice varied from time to time, but in 1908 they definitely decided 
against “student preaching.” Thus it has been in these Churches ever 
since. 

Our revision (1914) of the Church Order of Dort, as far as Article 
20 is concerned, is quite radical. In the Church Order of Dort Article 
20 provides for training centers or “proposition” in Churches with 
gifted Ministers. In our Church Order Article 20 governs the speak- 
ing of “a word of edification” in public worship. 

2. The two classes of unordained men included in the provision of 
Article 20. 

In the first place the article concerns regular students for the min- 
istry. That is to say, men who are looking forward to the ministry 
and are taking a course of study at our seminary. Art. 20 does not 
state specifically that it refers to students at our own seminary, but 
inasmuch as we would not think of licensing students regardless of tne 
schools which they might be attending, and inasmuch as the “rule in 
this matter” to which the article makes reference is a rule which per- 
tains to students of our own Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, this 
reference is altogether valid. The latest rulings of Synod regarding 
these matters were made in 1936. They read as follows: 

“1. The Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary may grant 
licensure to conduct religious services in our Churches only to such as: 

a. Are enrolled as regular students in our Seminary. 

b. Have successfully passed the final examinations of the Junior year 
in the Seminary. 

2. The Board shall not grant licensure to such students until it has 
made sure of the following with respect to each applicant: 

a. That he is a member in good standing in our Churches. 

b. That he has the spiritual qualification necessary for the ministry, 
and that he considers himself called of God to prepare himself for 
the office of ministering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

c. That he intends to enter the ministry of the Christian Reformed 
Church. 

d. That he has sufficient knowledge of the Bible, and especially of our 
Reformed principles to act as a guide to others. 

e. That he can speak acceptably and to the edification of the church- 
es. It is left to the discretion of the Board, however, whether it 
will obtain this information by consulting the Seminary Faculty 
or by examining the applicants. 

3. The Board has the right to extend the licensure of those who 
want to take post-graduate work, but with the understanding : 

a. That this privilege is to be granted only to such as are taking 
post-graduate work in theology, and declare that it is their definite 
intention to enter the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. 

b. That this extension is valid for no more than one year. 

c. That further extension may be given at the end of the first year in 
case the applicant makes his request in writing, and at the end of 
the second year if he appears in person and is willing to submit to 
another examination. (The latter part of Rule 3c does not apply 
to those who are taking post-graduate work in theology outside of 
the United States or Canada.) 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


91 


4. The Board is obliged to revoke the licensure: 

a. Of those who have completed their theological studies and have 
railed to take steps to enter into the sacred ministry of the Word. 
D. Of those undergraduate students who either discontinue their 
studies or fail to enroll again at the Seminary.” 

By saying that Art. 20 refers to students of our own seminary, we 
do not mean to say that Classes have not the right to license young 
men belonging to one of our Churches, but studying at some other 
seminary, in the abstract. They have this right. Synod of 1924 even 
specifically stated that the various Classes most assuredly had the 
right to license students of other schools to exhort in their respective 
confines, but urged the Classes not to make use of this right in behalf 
of our own school and as a measure of safety. 

In the second place Article 20 specifies that “persons who have ac- 
cording to Article 8 been judged competent to be prepared for the 
Ministry of the Word,” may be given the right to preach in the 
Churches. This right to be given by the Classes, of course, inasmuch 
as this is strictly a classical matter and not a matter falling under the 
charge of Curatorium, i.e. the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and 
Seminary. 

3. The designation “a word of edification.” 

Why is the phrase “a word of edification” used? No doubt to dis- 
tinguish between the leadership and work of the ordained and the un- 
ordained in public worship. 

To preach really signifies to proclaim upon the authority of and as 
legal appointee by one in authority. He who preaches, according to 
the meaning of the concept, comes upon special authority of God and 
His Christ to speak as representative of God. Now it can only be said 
of those who have been regularly called by God (through the Church), 
and ordained by Him to this prophetic office, that they are His legal 
ambassadors proclaiming the Word and will of God. The unordained 
man can speak to the edification of his fellow-believers, but he cannot 
speak with that special authority with which the ordained Minister 
may and must come. 

Externally, as far as form and words are concerned, the messages 
of the ordained and the unordained will often differ very little. But 
this does not alter the fact that there is a difference. The selfsame 
words may be spoken by a private citizen and a legally appointed 
judge sitting in judgment. And yet there is a difference. And so 
again and again we are dealing with essential differences in life, when 
formal differences are negligible. 

Our Methodist friends speak of exhortation. This term has also 
been used in our circles. It is to be preferred above edification. The 
verb to exhort is at least more telling and distinctive than the verb 
to edify. 

What can be said in favor of the practice of exhorting ? It is help- 
ful to the student. What the student receives at school is predominate- 
ly theory. But as an exhorter in the Churches he receives practical 
training. Theory is fundamental and indispensable. But if a good 
theoretical training can be reenforced and capped off with some prac- 
tical training, then that certainly should be appreciated. Compare the 
method of training medical doctors. 

In the second place, it is also helpful to the Churches. They not 
only profit by the exhortation of the student exhorter, but also learn 
to know the future candidates and Ministers somewhat, so that they 
can call more intelligently during future months or years. 


92 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Which are some of the objections raised against the practice of per- 
mitting students to exhort? It is said to be detrimental to the stu- 
dent, inasmuch as it robs him of much valuable time which he should 
spend on his studies at school, and to some extent lessens his desire 
for thorough work at school, centering his thought and endeavors on 
the practical work in the Churches when he should be mastering his 
theological studies. 

In the second place it is claimed to be detrimental to the Churches, 
inasmuch as young men who have not yet finished their course of 
training are not in position to lead and teach in public worship. In- 
ferior material will often be presented to the Church, so it is said, and 
in some cases erroneous doctrines or presentations may be held forth 
from the pulpits, due to lack of sufficient training on the part of the 
students. 

These objections are surely not without weight. But we feel that 
there is more to be said in favor of the practice than against it. We 
believe that the valuable practical training which exhorting affords 
our students can be secured without permitting the theoretical basis 
of our ministerial training to suffer. Theory and practice cannot and 
need not and should not always be separated by a high and straight 
fence. Educational psychology also tells us this. And through proper 
supervision and regulation the evils which are apt to attend this 
usage can surely be held down to a minimum. 

Let us remember in this connection that there is no difference in 
principle here. The case is not thus, that one favors the practice of 
permitting unordained men to lead in public worship upon special 
occasion, but that the other considers this practice to be unBiblical. 
For those who are opposed to the practice of permitting students to 
exhort, heartily favor the practice of permitting candidates to exhort, 
whereas candidates are unordained as well as students. 

4. Why does Art. 20 only concern the speaking of “a word 
of edification.” 

Because this is the only activity that exhorters may engage in. 
Only the ordained official representatives of God may administer the 
sacraments. This is also true as far as the preaching of the Word 
is concerned. But for the official proclamation of God’s Word and 
will, the exhortation of an exhorter, as brother amongst brethren, 
can be substituted by way of exception. But we have no substitute 
for the sealing ordinances of God’s covenant, i.e., the sacraments. 


ARTICLE XXI. 

The Consistories shall see to it that there cure good Christian 
Schools in which the parents have their children instructed ac- 
cording to the demands of the covenant. 

CONSISTORIES AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS. 

1. The main difference between our present reading of Art. 21 and 
the original reading in the Church Order of Dort, 1618-19. 
Article 21 in our venerable and historic Church Order (Dort, 
1618-19) reads as follows: De Kerkeraden zullen alomme toezien, dat 
er goede schoolmeesters zijn, die niet alleen de kinderen leeren lezen, 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


93 


schrijven, spraken en vrije kunsten, maar ook dezelve in godzaligheid 
en in den Catechismus onderwijzen. That is to say: “Everywhere 
Consistories shall see to it, that there are good schoolmasters who 
shall not only instruct the children in reading, writing, languages 
and the liberal arts, but likewise in godliness and in the Catechism.’' 

As will be noted, the ruling of Dort charges the Consistories to see 
to it that there shall be good teachers, whereas our present reading 
of the article charges the Consistories to see to it that there are good 
Christian Schools. 

Why this difference? At the time when the original Church Order 
was adopted (this particular article was already adopted by the 
Synod of 1586) free, parental Christian Schools were unknown. Hol- 
land was leading the world in popular education, but its schools were 
controlled and supported by the government. 

Conditions were altogether different from what they are today. 
The governments of- Europe all stood officially committed to either 
the Roman Church or to the Protestants and their Churches. Sepa- 
ration between Church and State was virtually unknown. Secondly, 
by common consent the governments officially promoted and spon- 
sored both religion and education. 

Now the government of Holland, (that of the Republic) stood defi- 
nitely committed to the Reformed faith, though Roman and human- 
istic forces were not silent. Consequently the schools which the gov- 
ernment sponsored and supported were Reformed. They were Chris- 
tian Day Schools, distinctly Reformed. 

But it should be noted further that the government used the Re- 
formed Churches to establish, promote, and supervise its schools. As 
might be expected, not all saw the need of a general schooling for 
all children, and not all realized the import of thorough Christian 
education. In some places the people failed to organize and to open 
schools. In other places inferior teachers were in charge, some of 
whom were not Reformed in confession and life. Consequently, at 
various times the Churches gathered in Synod charged the Consisto- 
ries to be loyal and vigilant. And whereas the true welfare of the 
Churches depended to a large extent upon the schools, the promotion 
and control of which the government committed to the Churches, 
Article 21 of the Church Order of Dort charges the Consistories 
as it does. 

Various measures were adopted during these years by the Churches 
and approved of by the government, which point to a very close co- 
operation between the Churches and the government in the establish- 
ment and maintenance of Christian Schools. For instance, the law 
required that schoolmasters be professors of the Reformed faith, and 
hold membership in one of the Reformed Churches; they had to be 
Godly in all their conduct; they were required to subscribe to the Re- 
formed confessions; they had to give proof of knowing the Catechism 
and of ability to teach it in the school rooms; they were under special 
supervision of the Consistories and accountable to them. 

Today circumstances are altogether different. Separation between 
Church and State is duly recognized, especially in our country. Con- 
sequently the government cannot favor one above another through 
its schools, but must aim at strict neutrality. 

Furthermore, progress of Protestantism and a better understand- 
ing of the distinctive and special task of the State and of the Church, 
and of the rights and duties of fathers and mothers, has caused us 
to see that the ideal, according to God’s ordinances, should ever be 
schools owned and controlled by the parents concerned. 


94 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Consider in this connection that the Bible persistently charges the 
parents with the training of their children, (cf. Deut. 6:7; 11:19; Eph. 
6:4). Children are constantly referred to as belonging to their par- 
ents and not as belonging to the Church or the State. Responsibility 
is therefore always fixed on the fathers and mothers. 

Moreover, regarding the State, the Word of God teaches that gov- 
ernments have been instituted to maintain good order in civil affairs, 
which includes armed defense against men and forces which disturb 
the peace and which trample upon justice, as well as the punishment 
of all law-breakers, (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Nowhere does the Word of 
God charge the State to rear children. 

And regarding the Church, in keeping with the three-fold office of 
Christ its glorious Head, the Church must preach the Word; must 
show mercy in His name; and must govern the Church under Him. 
To be sure, by reason of its prophetic task the Church is charged 
to teach. But the subject matter which the Church is required to 
teach pertains to the Gospel of the Kingdom and is limited to the 
domain of special grace. Only by exception is the Church permitted 
to teach so-called secular subjects, such as reading, arithmetic, chem- 
istry, psychology, etc. Why? Because these and kindred subjects 
are of secondary importance to the welfare of the Church. Flourish- 
ing Church life requires that these subjects be taught, but they do 
not concern the heart and core of the Church and its task. They are 
not absolutely indispensable to the Church. And so the Church should 
concentrate on its own specific task, and teach only that which per- 
tains to the Gospel and the doctrine of the Kingdom. 

However, all of life is related, and all of life stands related there- 
fore to the Kingdom. And the so-called secular subjects have a defi- 
nite import also for the Church. If, therefore, the proper parties 
neglect to instruct the youth in these subjects, or neglect to instruct 
the youth in keeping with the Word of God, then the Church may 
step in and do that which strictly speaking does not belong to her 
specific charge. Whenever her true welfare requires such, the Church 
may take to hand things which lie at the outside of the circle of her 
interests and not at the center. (For instance, to state the case ex- 
tremely: A Church may not go into the business of laying sidewalks 
or of graveling roads. But a Church would not hesitate to lay a 
sidewalk along the public highway or to gravel a road miles in 
length if the proper authorities failed to do so, and if the true wel- 
fare of the Church required said sidewalk or graveling.) 

But clearly, the Church is not charged to run grade schools, high 
schools, or colleges. No more than the State. 

Now it was out of consideration of the foregoing reasons that Art. 
21 was made to read as it does today, when our Synod of Roseland, 
1914, revised our time-honored Church Order. 

2. The significance of Article 21. 

The wording of this article might lead one who is not fully in- 
formed to think that our Church Order stipulates that Consistories, 
(1) must organize and maintain good Christian Schools, (2) must 
see to it that parents send their children to these Church schools. 
This, however, ;s not the meaning of Article 21. The wording of the 
Article may be explained from a desire to adhere as closely as pos- 
sible to the wording of Article 21 in its historic form. Church 
schools have never been advocated by the Reformed Churches. All 
that know the history of our Churches and the history of Article 21, 
realize that the article as it reads today means to say that our Con- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


95 


sistories must promote the organization and proper maintenance of 
good Christian Day Schools by believing parents, and must urge the 
members of our Churches to use these schools for the education of 
their God entrusted children, if at all possible. 

But why does the Church Order stipulate that Consistories must 
promote Christian Day Schools, whereas the general schooling of the 
child is admittedly not the task of the Church? 

In part this question has already been answered in the foregoing. 
Consequently we can be brief at this time. Let us remember then 
that life is a unit. There is not a subject on the schedule of any 
school that does not bear some relation to God and our faith in Him 
and our life for Him. 

To be specific, we preach and teach in our Churches that the sov- 
ereign hand of God guides all of life, that we must acknowledge and 
obey God at all times and everywhere. But if our children go to a 
school in which this fact is ignored or gainsaid, directly or by im- 
plication, we must not be surprised if the teachings of the Church 
taken from God’s Word are cast to the winds. This needs no further 
argument. 

The school should teach in full harmony with the Word of God, as 
well as the Church. That will make, by God’s grace, for strong and 
well informed Christians. The Church cannot afford, and before God 
cannot tolerate, to see much of her precious teachings contradicted 
and silenced five days a week, year after year, before our children, 
and that while they are in their formative years. Godless and Christ- 
less instruction clearly runs counter to the best interests of the 
Church, the Kingdom of God in general, the welfare of the child, 
and the solemn obligation of Christian parents. 

Consequently it becomes the plain duty of the Church to promote 
good Christian Schools, and to urge parents to use these schools if 
at all possible. 

3. What is the significance of the phrase, “according to the covenant 
of grace”? 

The covenant of grace may be designated as a league of friend- 
ship between God and His people in Christ Jesus. Not all men are 
included in this covenant, but only the believers and their seed. The 
covenant of grace draws a line of separation between men and men; 
some are God’s children; others are the children of the world. And 
only by the irresistible operation of God’s grace can one who is a 
child of Satan become a child of God and a member of the covenant 
of grace. Consequently, he who is a believer in Christ as Saviour is 
in league with God. He is God’s child; God^s friend. All that he is 
and has he would dedicate to God. All of life he relates to God. 

Now the privileges and prerogatives of the covenant pertain not 
only to believers, but also to the children of believers, (cf. Gen. 17:7; 
I Cor. 7:14). 

It is not that every child bom of believing parents shall surely 
share in the full blessings of the covenant. There are exceptions to 
this rule also. Some will reject and break God’s covenant. But God’s 
special claim on them, in common with those to whom all the gra- 
cious implications of the covenant shall be realized, cannot be denied. 
And therefore, as far as God’s claim is concerned, and as far as spe- 
cial advantages are concerned, all children born of believing parents 
are covenant children. Moreover, all children born of believing par- 
ents should be regarded as covenant members to whom the full and 
blessed significance of the covenant pertains, until their failure to 


96 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


profess Christ in word and deed forces ns to infer that the full and 
actual significance of the covenant is not theirs. 

And so all covenant children must be treated and trained as children 
of God. Most assuredly then, if at all possible, we should establish 
schools which train the child to recognize the wisdom and glory of 
God in all things, as well as the dire effects of sin, and the glorious 
redemption through Christ; the constant conflict in life between God 
and the devil; God’s special claim on him and his life, etc. This type 
of training is clearly demanded by the covenant of grace. 

4. Good Christian schools. 

Why does the Church Order speak of Good Christian schools? Be- 
cause not all schools which are Christian day schools are necessarily 
good. The ideals after which our Christian schools must strive lie 
very high, so high, indeed, that we shall never reach them. And yet 
we must bring our schools as near to those ideals as we possibly can. 

Not that only. There is always the danger of retrogression. Eter- 
nal vigilance is also the price of genuine Christian instruction. Good 
buildings, and good educational facilities and thoroughly-trained 
teachers who profess the Christian religion, do not necessarily make 
good Christian schools. Good equipment, etc., are very desirable. But 
love for, and a grasp on the implications of the covenant, and ability 
to teach these implications are indispensable for good Christian 
schools, worthy of that name and designation. Therefore, Article 
21 stipulates .that Consistories shall promote “good” Christian schools. 

5. How can Consistories best carry out the charge of Article 21? 

As to the establishment of Christian day schools, the Consistories 

may urge parents to do their utmost in this respect at the occasion 
of family visitation. Furthermore, Consistories can arrange for par- 
ents’ meetings at which the need and possibilities of Christian in- 
struction is discussed. They can faithfully distribute Christian school 
literature, such as published by the Union of Christian Schools. They 
can urge the Minister and all members of the Consistory to promote 
the cause in their personal contacts with parents. But Consistories 
should especially urge their Ministers to remember this cause in 
their sermons. The Word of God certainly demands Christian instruc- 
tion. These demands should be preached wisely, timely, but also per- 
sistently in places where parents are neglectful. 

Article 21 also includes the element of supervision over Christian 
day schools. It stands to reason that no Consistory should attempt 
to act as a super-board over the lawfully appointed school board. 
The rightful authority of the parents who constitute the school so- 
ciety, and of the school board, should never be ignored. 

Briefly stated, to carry out this phase of the charge, Consistory 
members may visit the school, or schools, more or less regularly but 
voluntarily. They may also make it a point to establish repeated 
contacts with the teachers as individual Christians. Through these 
means a most natural supervision would result. But Consistory mem- 
bers might fail to visit the schools with sufficient frequency unless 
appointed to do so. Consequently the appointment of a committee 
charged to visit the school or schools repeatedly, and reporting its 
impressions to the Consistory, works better. In case one or more 
Consistory members also serve on the school board, that in itself 
would constitute a constant medium of contact between the school 
and the Consistory. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


97 


In case Consistories have good reasons to fear that erroneous doc- 
trines or tendencies are fostered in the school, or that the school is 
remiss in its task as a distinctively Christian school, the matter 
should be brought to the attention of the teacher, the principal, the 
school board, or to all, depending on circumstances and the gravity 
of the case. 

Some hold that in matters of doctrine the Consistory should have 
powers beyond the authority of the school board, so that the Con- 
sistory would virtually have the right to discharge a teacher over 
the decision of a school board. This is by no means the stand of Dr. 
F. Rutgers, with whom we concur entirely on this point. He holds 
that cases of irreconcilable conflict between a school board and a 
Consistory, as to the orthodoxy of teachers will be very, very rare. 
But if they do occur, the final step for the Consistory would be to 
warn parents against said school, and to sponsor the organization 
of a sound school. Of course, individuals involved in the case might 
have to be disciplined. 

We fail to see how a Consistory can ever step into an extra con- 
gregational association and make authoritative decisions for it, no 
matter how just its cause may be, unless that association has volun- 
tarily placed itself under the final word of a certain Consistory. (The 
question whether or not a Consistory should ever accept such final 
power is, of course, another matter.) Nothing in the Church Order, 
as we see it, would warrant interference as above referred to, and 
the whole genius of Reformed church polity is against it. 

6. Article 21 and our public schools. 

Can the charge of this article in any case be applied to our public 
schools? We -would answer in the negative inasmuch as all states, 
to the best of our knowledge, have laws prohibiting sectarian instruc- 
tion in the public schools. The Christian religion, and its approach 
to life and the world in general, by court decisions falls under this 
term “sectarian.” Bible reading without comment is permitted in 
most states, provided that no parent of the district concerned objects. 
Real Christian instruction as we conceive of it, is practically out of 
the question in a public school. The state must aim at strict neutrality 
as long as the laws governing education stand as they are today. 

However, in communities in which a parental Christian school is 
out of the question, and in which Christian citizens have a free hand, 
they should by all means engage teachers who are Christians, so that 
the Bible may be read with reverence, and the general atmosphere 
of the school room may not be antagonistic to Christianity, but may 
rather be congenial to Christianity. (Let us remember in this con- 
nection that strict neutrality is really out of the question. We are 
either for Christ or against Him in all things. Also in the realm of 
education.) These parents could even do more. They could also peti- 
tion their legislators to revise the law in such a way, that positive 
Christian instruction may be given in public schools, if all the parents 
of a certain district give consent. 

We do not make much of this point inasmuch as legislators would 
be unwilling to enact laws as designated. And if they did, very few 
school districts would be without some objector which would make 
Christian instruction in the public school impossible once more. 

But supposing all parents of a given district desire Christian in- 
struction for their children, would it be wrong to introduce it in 
view of what the state statutes say? If all parents of certain school 
districts desire positive Christian instruction for their children 


98 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


through the medium of the public school, they should not begin to 
introduce said instruction without the knowledge of all the authori- 
ties concerned. These should be notified previously so that the giving 
of Christian instruction may be altogether open and above board, and 
that the instruction may be given with at least the tacit approval of 
the rightful authorities. We do not believe that the giving of Chris- 
tian instruction in any of our public schools under these circumstances 
can be called unchristian or unethical inasmuch as the statutes which 
prescribe neutral instruction were adopted generally speaking not 
from Godless and unChristian motives, but rather to safeguard the 
rights of parents who might object to “sectarian instruction”. If in 
any of our states the statutes were made to provide for “non-sectarian 
instruction” in public schools, from the clear and expressed motive 
of desiring to bar any and all religious instruction from all their 
public schools, and to see to it that no school tax money is in any 
way spent for so-called “sectarian instruction”, then in such states 
and as long as such laws are on the statute books our people should 
not undertake to introduce Christian instruction in their public 
schools. 

By all means, let our Consistories faithfully sponsor Christian day 
schools as conceived of in Article 21. Even in communities where a 
Christian school is out of the question for the time being, the ideal 
should be held before Christian parents constantly. 

7. Parental neglect and discipline. 

Should Consistories discipline parents who fail to give their child- 
ren Christian day school instruction though it be within their power 
to do so? 

There may be cases in which parents refrain from sending their 
children to a Christian school for reasons which they consider valid 
before God, although others question or deny the validity of their 
position. In all such cases the matter must be left to the consciences 
of the parents concerned, although the Consistory should urge prayer- 
ful reconsideration repeatedly. 

There may be other parents who simply do not feel the need of 
Christian day school instruction. Their confession may be blameless 
as well as their consecration of life. And their Christian conduct re- 
garding other matters may be altogether proper and unoffensive. 
But there is something present or lacking in their make-up and out- 
look which causes them to prefer the public school for their children. 
The position of such parents is grossly inconsistent to put it mildly. 
Now, all such people may and must be disciplined in the sense of 
admonishment, but cannot be disciplined in the sense of ecclesiastical 
censure, which ultimately might culminate in excommunication. Why 
not? None can be disciplined in the latter sense unless he has given 
serious doubt as to his Christianity, through impenitence regarding 
a special sin, or sin in general. And none can be excommunicated 
except a Church is compelled to believe that the party in question is 
not a Christian. (Cf. Form for Excommunication.) 

They who can, but do not use the Christian school for their children 
are making a big mistake, and are chargeable before God. But they 
may be serious-minded Christians for all that. The training of those 
parents may have much to do with their conception. 

Parents who fail to send their children to a Christian school be- 
cause they assume a careless attitude toward their Christian obliga- 
tion and make light of their baptismal vows, should be admonished, 
censured, and perhaps excommunicated because of their unChristian 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


99 


attitude toward God and His commands in general. In other words, 
mere failure to send children to a Christian school may never con- 
stitute a basis for censure and excommunication, but persistent in- 
difference toward Christian duty, including proper child training, may. 
For by such indifference we clearly testify that we are either tem- 
porarily wandering away from God, or that our Christianity is only 
a sham, without reality, and that we are Godless at heart. 

8. Consistory members out of sympathy with Christian schools. 

Can one who is opposed to Christian schools serve as Consistory 
member? Not very well. Those who serve in Consistory pledge them- 
selves to uphold the doctrine and government of our Churches. (Cf. 
Form of Subscription.) Now, the Church Order, according to which 
they help to govern the Church, requires that they promote and spon- 
sor Christian schools. Therefore one who is opposed to these schools 
cannot serve in the Consistory. He cannot do what is expected of 
him. Even those who assume a lukewarm attitude toward the Chris- 
tian school movement are not desirable candidates for the Consistory. 

We should, of course, remember that every case must be judged 
on its own merits. A general rule in this matter should never be 
made. 

Furthermore, some men who feel the need of Christian schools, are 
sadly weak and wanting in other respects. Consequently a Consistory 
may be compelled to nominate one who is not a promoter and lover 
of Christian schools, for the simple reason that other brethren have 
still more serious faults. 

9. Catechetical instruction. 

In addition to what has been remarked regarding catechetical in- 
struction under Art. 16 we here note that the Synod of Dort (1618-19) 
spoke of three kinds of catechetical instruction; namely that given 
in the home, in the school, and in the Church. Parents were ex- 
pected to instruct their children and their whole household in the 
Word of God and the catechism which had been adopted. This paren- 
tal instruction has not always received its just due. We of today 
can stand a good reminder on this point. How important that children 
shall learn to know the true teachings of God’s Holy Word from 
their parents. What a noble work and beneficial exercise it would 
be for the parents themselves. And would not this work faithfully 
performed draw parents and children closer together, and make them 
more confidential regarding matters spiritual? 

Regarding the catechetical work in the schools the Synod of Dort 
decided: (1) That the government should open schools everywhere, 
and that the children of the poor should receive free instruction in 
these schools. (2) That the schoolmasters had to be members of a 
Reformed Church, pious in their conduct and well versed in the 
catechism. (3) That three booklets should be used for catechetical 
instruction, one for the smaller children, one for the more advanced 
scholars, and then the regular Heidelberg Catechism. (4) That super- 
vision over the schools should repose with the Ministers, who to- 
gether with an Elder or one of the magistrates should visit the 
schools, and encourage both teachers and pupils. (5) That the school- 
masters, in case they were delinquent, should be admonished by the 
Consistories, and if this did not help, the authorities should be asked 
to act. 

From all this it certainly appears that the governmental schools 
of this period were certainly Reformed governmental schools. Where 


100 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


at first such was not the case, but where the schools were under the 
influence and dominance of Rome, the reformatory w T ork of the 
Churches was soon extended to the schools. 

Regarding Church instruction it was deemed desirable that Minis- 
ters in rural districts should personally teach the catechism in the 
schools, and that they should instruct the older scholars at his home 
or in the Consistory room and that weekly. Those that desired to 
receive permission to come to the Lord’s Table he should instruct dili- 
gently for three or four weeks. 

Our Synod of 1928 urged and encouraged Consistories to continue 
catechetical instruction for a nine-month term each year. (Art. 46.) 
And Synod of 1918 already held that as a Reformed group and in 
regard to the training of our children we should place all emphasis 
upon catechetical instruction in the home and by the Church, as well 
as upon Christian school instruction. If these are held in honor 
amongst us as they should be, so Synod declared, then there will be 
but small need for Sunday schools in our midst for our own children. 

Furthermore Synod held that the Sunday school could only be ac- 
corded a place of its own in our Churches if it were used as a means 
of evangelization. Synod urged the Churches in this direction. (Cf. 
Acts, 1918, pp. 53, 150.) 

And Synod of 1888 ruled that parents who neglect to send their 
children to catechism, though they can do so, become subject to dis- 
cipline. And young people who have come to years of discretion and 
refuse to attend catechetical instruction classes subject themselves 
to discipline also. 

Regarding our Sunday schools, their place, management, etc., we 
refer to what we have said under Article 16. 


ARTICLE XXII. 

The Elders shall be chosen by the judgment of the Consistory 
and the Deacons according to the regulations for that purpose 
established by the Consistory. In pursuance of these regula- 
tions, every church shall be at liberty, according to its circum- 
stances, to give the members an opportunity to direct attention 
to suitable persons, in order that the Consistory may there- 
upon either present to the congregation for election as many 
Eiders as are needed , that they may, after they are approved 
by it, unless any obstacle arise , be installed with public prayers 
and stipulations; or present a double number to the congrega- 
tion and thereupon install the one-half chosen by it, in the 
aforesaid manner, agreeably to the Form for this purpose. 

THE APPOINTMENT OF ELDERS 

John Calvin restored, by the grace and in the providence of God, 
the Elders to their rightful position in the Church. The Roman 
Church was much deformed in its conception of the various offices 
in God’s Church. The Ministers were changed into bishops who not 
only had the right to administer the sacraments but also the right 
to ordain or appoint priests. The Elder’s office was deformed into 
the priest's office, and they were charged to administer the sacraments. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


101 


The Deacons no longer cared for the poor, the work of mercy having 
been largely delegated to the various orders, but they were made to 
be assistants to the priests, in the celebration of the mass, as the 
Levites of old assisted the priests in the temple. 

The Lutheran Church in Germany failed to restore the Elder's 
office, the government of the Church being left to the civil authorities. 
Even Zwingli, as Jansen points out,* permitted the civil government 
to rule the Church. But Calvin sponsored the appointment of Elders 
as the Reformed Churches have known them ever since. He did this 
inasmuch as he saw that this was Biblical, and because he considered 
it very necessary in view of the dangers of hierarchism, i.e., the abuse 
of power on the part of one or a few. 

1. The calling of Elders: Its constituent elements^ 

Article 22 provides for three distinct elements which together 
constitute the process by which men are inducted into the Elder’s 
office. They are: Election, Approbation, and Installation. These same 
three are also provided for in Article 4, which governs the calling 
of Ministers into office. But in addition to these three Article 4 also 
provides for a fourth step. Namely: Examination. No one can be 
ordained to the ministry without being examined. For the Eldership 
however, our Churches do not require an examination. The matter 
has been mentioned and suggested repeatedly. Those who favored 
an examination for Elders would point to I Tim. 3:10, which even 
demands that Deacons “first be proved” before they begin to serve. 
Moreover, the import of the work of an Elder, so it was said, demands 
that he be well versed in the Bible and the Confessions, and that he 
prove his qualifications for Church governmental and pastoral work. 

But the Churches have never taken steps to introduce examinations 
for Elders. The practical objections against the suggestion are in 
the main the following: 

(1) The “proving” required in I Tim. 3:10 can be conveniently car- 
ried out informally by due consideration of the brethren to be nomi- 
nated for Elder at the Consistory meeting. (2) A regular course of 
instruction for the Eldership cannot be called necessarv. The general 
training which the catechism classes, the societies and general read- 
ing afford our wide awake members is sufficient. The most desirable 
men might even .be too modest to take a course designed to fit one 
for the Elder’s office, and the bold but less desirable might be anxious 
to take such a course. (3) Courses of study for the eldership would 
at best be introduced in only a few Churches and that would make 
for irregularity and inequality. Consequently Article 22 requires 
only: election, approbation, and installation. 

2. The election of Elders. 

Who may be elected to the Elder's office? Those that answer to 
the descriptions given in I Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. These two 
passages give a fuller description of qualities desirable and necessary 
in an Elder than any other in Holy Writ. They are therefore very 
important and should be borne in mind constantly. 

As a general rule it may be said that the following are some of 
the chief requisites for a good Elder in our Churches: A thorough 
knowledge of God’s Word; unquestioned sincerity of heart as a pro- 
fessing Christian; whole-hearted loyalty to the Church as to its doc- 
trinal position; exemplary conduct in everyday life; ability to instruct 


* Jansen: Xorte Verklaring-, etc., page 93. 


102 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


others; forbearance; good judgment; self-denying devotion. All these 
as will be noted are virtually implied in the passages of Scripture 
referred to above. 

Are they who have close relatives, such as father or a brother in 
the Consistory, eligible to election? They certainly are. When there 
are a number of men available in a certain Church it may not be 
the part of wisdom to nominate sons or brothers of those already 
holding office, but it would not be against the Bible and our Church 
Order. It is well to remember in this connection that Jesus chose 
more than one set of brothers to serve as Apostles, (cf. Peter and 
Andrew, James and John.) But again we say, if others are available, 
it may be better not to nominate close relatives of those already in 
office. But to exclude them systematically and regardless of circum- 
stances would^ be wrong. It would often work injury to the Church 
and be an injustice toward many excellent brethren. 

The question is sometimes asked whether brethren otherwise well 
qualified and desirable, but whose wife or children manifest some very 
disagreeable characteristics or even unChristian attitudes, are eligible 
to office. It is certainly advisable to take note of all the characteris- 
tics enumerated in Holy Writ in the passages already referred to, 
but if a Consistory is convinced that a certain brother is not respon- 
sible for undesirable conditions in his home, then these undesirable 
conditions need not bar him from office. However, if a large number 
of brethren are available, then it is best to select those whose families 
are also exemplary. 

By whom are the Elders to be elected to office? According to the 
wording of Article 22 Elders are chosen to office “by the judgment 
of the Consistory and Deacons.” The term “Consistory,” when used 
in distinction from “Deacons” in the Church Order, has reference to 
Ministers and Elders, (cf. our interpretation of Article 4.) Article 
22 therefore stipulates that in the election of Elders, all three offices 
shall co-operate. Just as we find it in Articles 4, 5, and 24. 

This does not mean that the body of believers as such has no right 
and voice in £he matter. In the last analysis Christ is the only ruler 
in the Church. He is its government. For He is the Church’s great 
Prophet, only High Priest and eternal King. This three-fold authority 
of Christ is delegated by Him to our Ministers, Deacons and Elders. 
But clearly, no man would assume to himself this delegated authority 
of Christ He must be appointed by Christ. Through whom? 
Through the Church, the organized body of believers, acting as agents 
of Christ, either directly, as is the case when a Church is newly or- 
ganized and when the office-bearers are appointed for the first time, 
or more indirectly, as is the case when the office-bearers previously 
appointed in consultation with the Congregation, make new appoint- 
ments for the Church concerned. 

Consequently our Confession of Faith begins as follows: “We be- 
lieve that the Ministers of God’s Word, the elders, and the deacons 
ought to be chosen by a lawful election by the Church, . . . .” And 
for this reason the first question to which Elders and Deacons must 
respond at the time of their installation reads as follows: “Do you, 
both elders and deacons, feel in your hearts that you are lawfully 
called of God’s church, and consequently of God Himself, to these 
your respective holy offices?” 

Article 22 does not mean to say that inherently the office- 
bearers, and they only, have the right to appoint to office. It is well 
to remember in this connection that in our Three Forms of Unity we 
have a statement of doctrine and Biblical principles, but that the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


103 


Church Order is a set of rules accepted by the Churches for the pro- 
motion of good order and due regularity in Church affairs. The 
Church Order is not even in the first place a summary of Church 
governmental principles, gleaned from Holy Writ, but rather a com- 
pilation of rules according to which the Churches are to be ruled and 
according to which the task and interests of the Churches are to be 
promoted. Of course, nothing in the Church Order runs counter to 
Holy Writ and the principles set forth in our doctrinal standards. 
But this is the point: the various stipulations of the Church Order 
cannot always be given that dogmatical interpretation which their 
mere words might seem to demand. Very often a given stipulation 
is but a rule of good order which all the Churches have agreed to 
follow, and hence must follow under all normal circumstances, for 
reasons of expediency, i.e., for the promotion of the true welfare of 
the Churches. 

Now Reformed Church governmental principles on this score, to- 
gether with what the Bible presents to us regarding appointment to 
office, f.i. Acts 1 and Acts 6, and the statement from our Confession, 
and the first questions from the Form of installation, all lead us to 
hold that Article 22 does not read as it does, because office-bearers 
have in and by themselves inherent authority to appoint to office. 
This interpretation would, moreover, agree with the Roman concep- 
tion of the offices and its teaching concerning the minority of the 
believers. But it would run counter to the Reformed conception con- 
cerning the rights and duties of the congregation and the three-fold 
office of all believers. 

Briefly stated, this article of our Church Order provides that the 
office-bearers, upon the authority vested in them by Christ, shall exer- 
cise the right of guidance and definite control in the matter of ap- 
pointment to office by the Congregation. This article acknowledges 
the authority and the responsibility of the office-bearers entrusted to 
them by Christ, and at the same time does justice to the rights of 
the body of believers forming a local Church. It is also a very wise 
arrangement. A smaller group of select men, vested with special au- 
thority in the Church and in position to know the needs of the 
Church and its membership, is better qualified to make wise decisions 
than the body of believers acting directly and without guidance and 
safeguards. 

Which modes of procedure does Article 22 permit the Consisto- 
ries to follow in the matter of calling men to the office of Elder? 
In the first place the Consistory may give the congregation an op- 
portunity to suggest various brethren for candidacy. The Consistory 
is, of course, at liberty to supplement this list. With the complete 
list before it, the Consistory now selects as many names as there 
are vacancies £q be filled. Their choice is next made known to the 
Congregation and unless valid objections are presented to the Con- 
sistory, the brethren concerned are inducted into office in the regular 
manner. The second mode of procedure which Consistories may em- 
ploy is as follows : The Consistories nominate for office twice as many 
brethren as there are vacancies to be filled. In due time the con- 
gregation chooses one-half of these nominees, who, unless valid ob- 
jections should be presented, are properly installed at the time ap- 
pointed. We know of no Church in our whole denomination which 
does not follow the second mode of procedure. This method is also 
in general use in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. 

It may be said that when this second and common mode of appoint- 
ing brethren to office is followed, Consistories are at liberty to give 


104 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the congregation an opportunity to suggest possible nominees. This 
element of the first mode of procedure in calling men to office, may 
certainly be used when the second mode is followed. It may be less 
necessary to do so in our smaller Churches inasmuch as the Consisto- 
ries of these smaller Churches will know the membership of their 
Churches sufficiently well to nominate without this activity on the 
part of the Church, but in larger Churches it is doubtless very desir- 
able. 

What is the significance of the phrase “according to the regula- 
tions for that purpose established by the Consistory”? The Church 
Order presupposes that each Consistory has a set of rules according 
to which elections shall be conducted. In Article 4, which concerns 
the election of Ministers, this same phrase occurs. Whenever the 
congregation is called together for the purpose of electing office- 
bearers, partiality and arbitrariness should be out of the question. 
To avoid these a set of rules consistently followed is very desirable. 

Then again, certain questions should not merely be left to usage 
and custom. For instance: Proper announcement of nominations 
should be made prior to every election; elections should take place by 
ballot; a majority vote should elect; etc. These and like rules are 
not found in the Church Order. They should be incorporated in a 
short set of rules governing elections. Furthermore, problems are 
apt to present themselves at any meeting. For example: In case 
more brethren receive a majority vote than the number of vacancies 
to be filled, what is to be done? When two candidates for one office 
receive an equal number of votes, what should be the procedure? 
Questions such as these cannot be decided by the congregation inas- 
much as the Consistory is the ruling body and not the congregational 
gathering. Moreover, for the Consistory to decide on such problems 
at the time when they present themselves might open the door to 
partiality or at least the semblance of partiality. Permanent rules 
should govern all such cases. 

To the best of our knowledge, very few of our Churches have a 
set of regulations such as the Church Order here prescribes. This 
is not as it should be. Various Church Order manuals published in 
the Netherlands offer model sets of rules for this purpose. For com- 
pleteness’ sake, and to give our Churches an example in the English 
language, we here add a model of our own. 


Suggested Set of Rules Governing the Election of 
Elders and Deacons 

Art 1. Elders and Deacons for this Church shall be chosen ac- 
cording to the stipulations of Articles 22 and 24 of our Church 
Order, and with the observance of the rules contained in the follow- 
ing articles of this set of rules. 

Art. 2. During the autumn of each year the Consistory with the 
Deacons shall meet to nominate candidates for Elders and Deacons. 
Twice as many brethren are to be nominated as the number of vacan- 
cies occurring. The nominations are announced at least for the space 
of two weeks. Before election takes place at least one Consistory 
meeting must occur in order that possible objections may be duly 
considered. 

Art. 3. During the latter part of November the Consistory calls a 
Congregational meeting together to which all male members in good 
and regular standing are invited. All such and only such are entitled 
to a vote. The number of those eligible to vote shall be recorded. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


105 


The President will announce the nominees once more and give in- 
structions if need be. Voting shall always be by ballot. 

Art. 4. A majority of those voting elects. Blank ballots are to be 
deducted from the total. One half of the valid votes plus one shall 
constitute a majority when the number of votes is an even figure. 
When the number of valid votes is uneven, one-half of such votes 
plus a half a vote shall constitute the majority. (Thus 8 would be 
the majority of 15.) 

In case more brethren received a majority of votes than are needed 
those having received 4/5 or more of the votes cast shall be considered 
elected. A new vote shall be taken on all the others that received 
a majority. When a tie vote occurs between brethren, only one of 
whom can be chosen, another vote is taken between these two. If the 
result is again a tie, the lot is to be cast. 

Art. 5. The results of the elections are announced at least two 
weeks after which a Consistory meeting must be held for the receiv- 
ing and consideration of possible objections. If a re-election must be 
held for one or more of the vacancies, the same general rules are to 
be observed. 

Art. 6. Installation into office takes place on Jan. 1 or the first 
Sunday of the New Year. The term of service of a newly elected 
office-bearer begins with his installation and ceases as soon as a suc- 
cessor has been installed in his place at the end of his term of service. 

Art. 7 V Vacancies which occur during the course of the year shall 
be filled in keeping with the foregoing rules. If the end of the year 
is near, the Consistory may decide to wait until the regular elections. 

Art. 8. Objections against methods of procedure should be offered 
at the same meeting at which they occur. Those who fail to reveal 
such objections at the same meeting at which they take place forfeit 
their right of protest. 

3. The approbation of elected Elders. 

The approbation, or approval of the congregation takes place after 
the election and before the installation. When the second mode of 
procedure permitted by our Church Order is followed then there is 
also a preliminary approval on the part of the congregation. For the 
nominations are announced to the Church and those who have objec- 
tions can register these. But the actual and final approbation on 
the part of the Church takes place after election. Some have con- 
tended that the approbation prior to election is sufficient. But the 
Form for Installation clearly addresses the congregation thus: 

“Beloved Christians, having previously made known unto you the 
names of our brethren who were chosen to the office of Elders and 
Deacons in this church, and no one having appeared to allege any- 
thing lawful against them, we shall therefore in the name of the 
Lord, proceed to their ordination.” 

This is as might be expected. Surely if one has serious objections 
against his own nomination or the nomination of another he ought 
not to wait, but make known his difficulty prior to the election. But 
if the Consistory maintains the nomination and the brother concerned 
is elected, the complaining party must certainly receive opportunity 
to voice his objections once more. And those elected may lack the 
liberty of conscience to accept the office. They must be able to say 
that being duly elected of God's Church, they feel themselves called 
of God to their office. If they have serious objections on this score 
they must make these known to the Consistory. Moreover, certain 
valid objections against one of the elected brethren may arise after 


106 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the election. To use an extreme illustration: An elected brother 
might drink himself drunk after an election and thus make himself 
undesirable for the time being at least, although his conduct on this 
score was above reproach previously. 

If objections are entered against any elected brother, but the Con- 
sistory finds that the objections are not valid and insufficient then 
the party concerned is installed as usual. But if the complaining 
member gives notice of appeal to Classis, then the installation should 
wait until after the Classis has considered the matter. However, if 
the Consistory is fully persuaded that the objector is merely moti- 
vated by jealousy or ill-will then the Consistory has the right to pro- 
ceed with the installation in spite of the appeal to Classis. But it 
stands to reason that a Consistory will await the verdict of its 
Classis unless the circumstances are very extraordinary. And when a 
Consistory is minded to install a brother in spite of an appeal to 
Classis, it should first consult a neighboring Consistory or its Church 
visitors as a matter of good order and Christian consideration toward 
the aggrieved party. If a Consistory has awaited the verdict of its 
Classis, and if the Classis advises to install, then the Consistory 
should install without delay, even though the protesting brother 
should appeal to Synod. No one duly elected should be barred from 
office for months by a series of protests. That would be unjust toward 
the elected brother, and toward the Church. 

If the Consistory sustains any objections raised against an elected 
brother, and if the objections cannot be removed, then the Consistory 
should declare the election of the brother concerned void, and should 
let the congregation make a new choice. 

4. The Installation. 

What is the significance of the installation of office-bearers? In- 
stallation of office-bearers is not to be identified with appointment 
to office. Appointment to office takes place through the process of 
election by the Church. Under special circumstances men have as- 
sumed office without formal installation. For instance, in days of 
persecution no one ever questioned the legality of their position as 
office-bearers. Why then does the Church Order provide for proper 
installation? So that the appointees may publicly accept their ap- 
pointment to office, and publicly assume their responsibilities, openly 
promising before God and His Church loyalty and devotion, and 
openly testify that they accept the appointment as coming from God 
Himself. Also, in order that the congregation may receive its new 
office-bearers in the right attitude of heart and mind. Furthermore, 
in order that the congregation may appropriately implore God’s 
blessing upon the newly elected office-bearers. 

In small congregations it sometimes is necessary to nominate those 
for office whose term is expiring. In case of re-election such men 
therefore continue to serve without intermission. In this connection 
the question has often been asked: Should those who are re-elected 
also be reinstalled? Synod of 1928 declared that installation in such 
cases was not only desirable, but also proper. (Art. 85.) Synod 
had good reasons for assuming this position. When our Elders and 
Deacons are elected they are chosen and appointed for a definite 
period of years, in most Churches for two or three years. When office- 
bearers so elected are installed they are installed for a definite num- 
ber of years; they assume the duties of office by solemn promises for 
that same definite number of years. Consequently, reinstallation is 
in place. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


107 


ARTICLE XXIII 

The office of the Elders, in addition to what uxls said in 
Article 16 to be their duty in common with the Minister of 
the Word, is to take heed that the Ministers, together with their 
fellow-Elders and the Deacons, faithfully discharge their office , 
and both before and after the Lord's Supper, as time and cir- 
cumstances may demand, for the edification of the Churches to 
visit the fa/milies of the Congregation , in order particularly to 
comfort and instruct the members, and also to exhort others in 
respect to the Christian Religion. 

THE DUTIES OF ELDERS 

This article gives us a brief statement of the work of the Elders. 
The Wezelian Convention (1568, pre-cursor of the regular Synods) 
already gave a rather lengthy description of the Elder’s tasks. But 
seemingly the Synod of Gravenhage, 1586, considers this description 
too detailed for Church Order purposes. This Synod at least gave us 
the brief redaction of Article 23 as we have it today. 

1. Government and discipline* 

Article 16 indicates the duties included in the office of the ministry. 
The last of these duties enumerated in Article 16 is also ascribed to 
Elders. It reads as follows: “. . . . and finally, with the Elders, to 
exercise church discipline and to see to it that everything is done 
decently and in good order.” We considered the significance of this 
provision when Article 16 was under consideration, and shall, there- 
fore, not repeat what has already been said. And the matter of 
discipline as such will be considered at length as we discuss Articles 
71 to 80. 

Does the administration of finances, building and grounds, etc., be- 
long to the domain of the Elders? Yes, inasmuch as the government 
of the Church is the task of the Elders and administrative duties are 
indeed governmental duties. This however, does not mean that the 
Consistory may not appoint a finance committee or helpers from 
amongst able and worthy members of the Church. The appointment 
of committees for various duties which concern the temporal interests 
of the Churches should be encouraged. It will give the Elders more 
time for the all important spiritual phase of their charge and will 
bring the work of the Churches somewhat closer to our membership. 
The practice here suggested is in wide usage in the larger Reformed 
Churches of Holland. 

However, all such helpers and committees should be appointed di- 
rectly by the Consistories for the term of one year only and they 
should know themselves strictly accountable to the Consistories. 

Should the Elders have a specific charge for every task or bit of 
work which they do in the congregation? As far as the work of 
discipline is concerned, each Elder may and should admonish erring 
sheep of the flock as time and occasion may demand, but no Elder 
may bar a member from the use of the sacraments upon his own 
authority and initiative. Membership rights may be withdrawn either 
as a temporary measure or decisively only upon concerted, united 
action of the whole body of Elders. But without a doubt the indi- 
vidual Elders may and must do a great deal of pastoral work upon 
their own initiative just as the Ministers do a great deal of pastoral 
work without awaiting a specific charge from the Consistory. By all 


108 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


means let our Elders diligently call on the sick, the erring, the un- 
faithful, the mourning, etc. 

2. Supervision over fellow-office-bearers. 

Supervision over office-bearers in Episcopal Churches (Roman 
Catholic, Methodist, etc.) is exercised in the first place by superior 
officers, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. With us all officers stand on par as 
to their official authority. Consequently, inasmuch as supervision in 
this imperfect and partial dispensation of the Church is highly neces- 
sary, all supervision amongst office-bearers must be mutual. Each 
must oversee, supervise the other, (cf. Acts 20:28.) “Take heed unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made 
you bishops (overseers) . . .” 

This supervision covers, in the first place, doctrine and life, as 
well as the discharge of one’s office. In doctrine one must be sound, 
in conduct exemplary and beyond reproach, and as an office-bearer 
faithful and diligent withal. 

The Elders should give particular heed to the Ministers of the 
Gospel. It is of prime importance that these preach and teach cor- 
rectly and effectively, and that their labors are performed in all 
faithfulness. But the other officers in the Church must also be true 
and faithful if the cause of God is to flourish. Error, disloyalty and 
neglect may not be tolerated in any office-bearer. That would be con- 
trary to God’s Word and would undermine the very foundations of 
the Churches. 

What mode of procedure must an Elder follow when he finds that 
one of his fellow office-bearers does not faithfully discharge his office ? 
He should confer with him personally and in a brotherly spirit. A 
personal conference may accomplish the end sought, or perchance 
prove that the fear entertained or the objection cherished rested upon 
a misunderstanding. The promotion of good will and common sense 
itself prescribes this first step. Moreover, this procedure, though not 
prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18:14 (for this passage does not speak 
of mutual supervision amongst office-bearers), nevertheless finds its 
analogy in this passage. 

If after a personal conference the objections remain, the aggrieved 
Elder should bring the matter to the Consistory for its consideration. 
If the matter be urgent and weighty such should be done at first op- 
portunity. If less urgent, the matter should be mentioned at the 
time of “censura morum,” i.e., mutual censure pertaining to morals, 
or Christian censure as it is termed in Article 81. This mutual cen- 
sure, according to Article 81, is to be held before each celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently at least four times a year. 

As stands to reason a flagrant and public sin, making the guilty 
one worthy of suspension or deposition from office, may require im- 
mediate action by the Consistory. 

3. Home-visitation work. 

In the third place Article 23 charges Elders with home-visitation 
work. The Churches of the Reformation did not favor the Roman 
practice of auricular and sacramental confession, i.e., the acknowl- 
edgment of sin to a priest in order to obtain forgiveness through him. 
They found no Scriptural warrant for the practice, and knew its many 
evil attendants. But our fathers did believe in personal supervision 
by the overseers and personal consultation by the overseers in order 
to instruct, correct and comfort each one according to his individual 
need. Christ Himself spoke not only to large groups of listeners, but 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


109 


also engaged in personal work. Confer the instance of Nicodemus, 
the Samaritan woman, Peter at the time of his restoration, etc. And 
the Apostles enjoin personal work by word and example. Psycho- 
logically also personal work, conducted by the duly appointed office- 
bearers, is altogether desirable and necessary. Now our fathers 
believed that this work could best be carried on through periodic 
visits on the part of the office-bearers at the homes of the parishioners. 
To this day our Churches have maintained this practice, although 
most Protestant Churches have discontinued it, no doubt to their loss. 
We may safely regard the practice of holding periodic supervisory 
visits with all our members at their own homes, gathered in family 
groups, as one of our denominational strongholds. Needless to say, 
this institution will utterly fail us, if and in as far as it should de- 
teriorate into a bare and formal custom. But conducted in the spirit 
and with the intent of the institution, it will continue to be a source 
of great good. 

Why does Article 23 provide that home visitation work must 
be carried on “both before and after the Lord’s Supper” ? Our fathers 
were no doubl convinced that a personal conference by the Elders 
with the members of their Church concerning the significance of the 
Lord’s Table, and the attitude of the heart in which they should come 
to communion, would be highly beneficial. Likewise that a personal 
conference on the benefits derived from attendance at the Lord’s 
Table and the duties involved in the privilege, would also be of great 
value. They had seen the ruinous effects of mere formalism in the 
corrupt Church which they had left behind. They were anxious to 
promote true spirituality in the Reformed, liberated Churches. 

But in the second place it must be remembered that home-visitation 
as established by the Reformed Churches took the place of the Roman 
confession before the priest. None are permitted to go to mass unless 
they have been to confession just previous to the celebration of the 
mass. It may be that our fathers stipulated visits before and after 
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper because of this Roman Catholic 
usage. We merely suggest the connection, inasmuch as we are not 
able to verify it at this time. This much is sure, inasmuch as a good 
many Church members had recently left the Roman Church, and 
were not well founded in the truth, repeated instruction and constant 
conferences would be very necessary. It should also be noted that 
the very first “major assembly” of the Reformed Churches of the 
Netherlands, the Wezelian Convention, 1568, ruled that home-visitation 
should be conducted by the Elders every week. Today as we know, 
loyal Roman Catholics still go to confession every week. 

The visits under consideration must be made furthermore “as time 
and circumstances may demand.” Today home-visitation calls are 
made annually in all of our Churches. The same condition prevails 
in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. 

What is the specific purpose of home-visitation according to Article 
23? In the first place “the edification of the Churches” is men- 
tioned. The Churches must be edified, that is builded, strengthened, 
increased. To edify simply means to build up. The cause of God rep- 
resented by our Churches must grow and increase. His Kingdom 
must come. This end may be accomplished, under God’s blessing, 
through the preaching of the Word, the teaching of the youth, but 
also through periodic visits on the part of the office-bearers with the 
Church members in their homes. 

Secondly Article 23 stipulates under this point “in order parti- 
cularly to comfort and instruct the members.” Comfort and instruc- 


110 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


tion were greatly needed during the youth period of the Reformed 
Churches. But we still need comfort and instruction. But this com- 
fort and instruction which God's Word offers so abundantly for every 
need and circumstance of life must be individualized through personal 
contact and conversation. 

The present reading of this article is the redaction of 1586 and 
constitutes an abbreviation or summary of what the Wezelian Con- 
vention had formulated on this score, and which in part reads as fol- 
lows: “They (the Elders) shall faithfully investigate whether they 
(the Church members) manifest themselves uprightly in walk and 
conduct, in the duties of godliness, in the faithful instruction of their 
households in the matter of family prayers, (morning and evening 
prayers) and such like matters; they shall admonish them to these 
duties with consideration, but also in all seriousness and according 
to conditions and circumstances; they shall admonish them to stead- 
fastness, or strengthen them to patience, or spur them on to a serious 
minded fear of God; such as need comfort and admonition they shall 
comfort and admonish, and if need be they shall report a matter to 
their fellow Elders, who together with them are appointed to exercise 
discipline; and besides these matters they shall correct that which 
can be corrected according to the gravity of the sin committed; nor 
shall they neglect, each one in his own district, to encourage them to 
send their children to catechism.” 

This designation is too long, as was soon felt, (1586), but who would 
care to deny that it contains a wealth of valuable suggestive material 
even for this day and age? 

Does home-visitation also belong to the task of the Ministers ? Not 
in the first place. In the first place it belongs to the office of those 
that are called to be overseers, the Elders. Consequently it is not even 
mentioned in Article 16, which indicates the task of Ministers. But 
isasfar as Ministers are teaching-elders, (cf. Form of Installation), 
and in so far Elders, the work of Elders, (government, discipline, etc.), 
also falls to them, though not primarily. 

As much as their primary duties allow, Ministers should do per- 
sonal work through home-visitation, visiting of the sick, the afflicted, 
and the aged, calling on delinquents, etc. All this may be included 
under what Article 16 terms “to watch over the Congregation.” More- 
over, effective ministerial work also requires close contact with the 
Congregation through personal work. But again, primarily, Ministers 
must preach and teach. And that, if they are to do it correctly and 
effectively, will require nearly all their time. And primarily home- 
visitation, etc., is the work of the regular Elders. 

4. The exhortation of others. 

This provision was incorporated in this article when the Reformed 
Churches were the official Churches of the Netherlands. The Re- 
formed Churches, and these only, had official recognition of the gov- 
ernment. Consequently all people inhabiting a certain district were 
considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the Reformed Church of 
that district. The office-bearers had duties toward all, though not all 
held membership with the Church. And although this conception and 
situation changed in course of time, yet the Churches in the Nether- 
lands, and also our own (1914), have maintained this provision. 

To be sure the Church has a duty toward those that are without. 
The gospel should reach the de-Christianized masses round about the 
Church. The Church must seek to win back that which was lost. God's 
covenant claims they must hear and God’s saving love must be pre- 
sented to them. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


111 


Now Article 23 stipulates that especially the Elders shall exhort 
the outsiders and ungodly to the Christian religion. This is significant 
indeed and often entirely overlooked. Every Church should expect its 
overseers, as far as possible, to oversee in the name of Christ, also 
those who as yet do not recognize their jurisdiction, and who as wan- 
dering sheep will not heed the voice of the shepherd but must be won 
back to the fold. Or, inasfar as these ungodly and perishing souls are 
direct descendants of pagan ancestors, (of which there are strictly 
speaking but very few in our country) they also must be exhorted to 
seek after God in Christ Jesus. 

All this is in full harmonv with a declaration of Synod 1932, which 
reads as follows: “The rampant neopaganism of our day and land re- 
quires that every one of our churches, whether alone or in collabora- 
tion with a neighboring church or churches, enter upon evangelistic 
activities. It also requires that, if possible, in addition to the regular 
pastor, the church or churches engage an ordained minister especially 
for this evangelistic work.” Acts 1932, Art. 25. And the fact that 
nearly all of our Synods have dealt with the subject of evangelization 
and home mission proves that our Churches are alive to the "reat need 
of this all important and challenging phase of Kingdom work. 


ARTICLE XXIV 

The Deacons shall be chosen, approved and installed in the 
same manner as was stated concerning the Elders. 

THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS 

This brief article makes a general reference to the stipulations of 
Article 22. Article 22 regulates the election of Elders. Three ele- 
ments are included in this election: election proper, approbation, and 
installation. These same elements are also mentioned in the present 
article. Inasmuch as these matters received consideration under 
Article 22, we shall not repeat now what has already been said. But 
we shall briefly note three matters which deserve consideration, name- 
ly: The essential character of the Deacon’s office; the qualification for 
this office; the matter of deaconesses. 

1. Essential character of the Deacon’s office. 

What is the essential character of the Deacon’s office? In answer 
to this question the origin of the names “Deacon” and “Diaconate” 
may be considered first of all. These words are derived from the 
Greek word Diakonos, and this word signifies one who serves or min- 
isters. In general it may be said that in Scripture the word Diakonos 
refers either to the ministry of the Word or the ministry of mercy. 
Confer Matt. 25:44; Mark 1:13; Luke 8:3; Acts 1:27; Acts 6:4; II Cor. 
4:1; Col. 4:17. In all these passages the word Diakonos or a word 
derived from it is used. 

To-day we still speak of the servants of the Word as Ministers of 
the Gospel. As a rule they are simply called Ministers. These office- 
bearers, on the other hand, who in a special way are required to show 
mercy, are never called by this name, although the word Deacon 
(Diakonos) signifies a minister. The name Deacon, therefore, tells us 
that he is a minister, a minister of mercy. 


112 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


The establishment of the Diaconate should also be considered when 
one inquires after the essential character of the Deacon’s office. The 
institution or origin of the Deacon’s office we find recorded in Acts 
6:1-6. From this passage it is clear that the work of mercy was some- 
what neglected in Jerusalem’s Church because the time of the Apostles 
was wholly taken up by the ministry of the Word and the government 
of the Church. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit seven men were 
elected and appointed as Deacons or ministers of mercy. This distinct 
office was also introduced in the other Churches, as frequent mention 
of the office in the epistles indicates. See, for instance, Phil 1:1. 

But most important for the determination of the true nature of this 
office, is the question: In what special way does the Deacon represent 
Christ, the Head of His Church? 

Christ, let us remember, is our chief Prophet, our only High Priest, 
and our eternal King (cf. H. Catechism, Lord’s Day XII). 

Now this three-fold office of our representative before God was 
typified in the 0. T. Church in its prophets, priests, and kings. When 
the real Prophet, Priest, and King came these types ceased. Never- 
theless, Christ did ordain through His Spirit three permanent offices 
for His N. T. Church namely, Ministers of the Word, Deacons, and 
Elders, representing Christ respectively as Prophet, Priest, and King. 

Deacons are, therefore, representatives of Christ as the merciful 
High Priest They are ministers of God’s mercy and love in Christ 
Jesus. There is not a single passage in the N. T. which aims to give 
us a complete characterization of the office of Deacon. Neither Acts 
6 nor I Tim. 3:8-10 does this. But the fact that the Deacons are 
Christ’s special representatives in His work of mercy in fundamental 
and all-important, and should govern us when we seek to determine the 
essential character of the Deacon’s office. 

Already in the second century after Christ the character of the 
Diaconate was severely corrupted and changed. Originally the 
Churches were ruled by bodies of Elders or Presbyteries. But during 
the century mentioned above a few of the Elders assumed the position 
of Bishops, and the other Elder as well as the Deacons became sub- 
servient to them. Eventually the Bishops occupied a place compar- 
able to the positions of High Priests during the O. T. dispensation and 
the Elders were regarded to be ordinary priests, whereas the Deacons 
were looked upon as Levites, who were expected to assist the priests. 
At first the Deacons still assisted in the work of mercy but when, in 
course of time, the work of mercy was absorbed by the various orders 
of monks, the Deacons’ office was wholly gobbed of its rightful and 
precious heritage. The Deacon now assisted at the ministration of the 
Word and of the Sacraments. The serving of the table mentioned in 
Acts 6:2, so the Roman Church ruled, referred to the serving of the 
sacramental tables in spite of the fact that the reference is clearly 
to the work of charity and mercy as practiced in the early Church at 
Jerusalem. 

Luther did not restore the Deacon to his rightful and God-given 
position. The Lutheran Church left the work of mercy to the civil 
government, and the name Deacon was later applied to those who acted 
as assistant pastors in large cities. But John Calvin restored the 
work of Christian mercy to the Deacon, and the Deacon to this work 
of mercy. Calvin even distinguished between two types of Deacons. 
To some he assigned the work of caring for the poor and to others the 
care of the sick, i.e. nursing the sick and infirm. 

Eventually only the former type was perpetuated in the Reformed 
Churches of Germany, France, Scotland, and Holland. Not as if the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


113 


Reformed Churches ever felt that the sick and the aged, and mentally 
deficient might be neglected, but their care, though often sponsored 
directly by the Churches through their Deacons was often left to pri- 
vate Christian initiative, supported and encouraged by the Churches. 

2. Qualifications for this office. 

The qualifications for the Deacon’s office may be gleaned particularly 
from the passages of Holy Writ already referred to, namely. Acts 
6:1-7 and II Tim. 3:8-12. 

Acts 6:3 reads as follows: “Look ye out therefore, brethren, from 
among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, 
whom we may appoint over this business.” This text mentions three 
essential qualifications which must be present in those holding the 
Deacon’s office. They must be: of good report, i.e., men held in esteem, 
especially by their Christian associates, because of their exemplary 
Christian conduct; full of the Spirit, i.e., men full of the Spirit’s conse- 
cration and love, so essential to one dispensing the mercy of Christ; 
full of wisdom, i.e. men having a large amount of good judgment, so 
that they may help and sustain the right parties in the right way. 

And in I Tim. 3:8-12 we read: “Deacons in like manner must be 
grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of 
filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And 
let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons if they 
be blameless. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, 
temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, 
ruling their children and their own houses well.” Briefly stated we 
may summarize the requirements contained in this passage as follows: 
Deacons must not be shallow and insincere, but serious minded; they 
must not be undependable and two-faced, but steadfast and honest; 
they must be temperate, even shunning the use of much wine; not 
stingy nor apt to accept bribes; they must live according to the life of 
faith, graciously revealed unto them, in such a way that their con- 
science need not accuse them constantly; they must be men not sud- 
denly and prematurely called to office, but tried and observed and 
found worthy; they must be men free from polygamy (Calvin’s in- 
terpretation: Men having more than one wife, while converted were 
seemingly not forced to forsake their additional wives, but for the 
sake of the example and because of their abnormal situations such 
could not serve as office-bearers); they must be men governing their 
own households according to God’s Word. 

Sometimes it has been claimed that one who is hard-pressed finan- 
cially and who may be in need of assistance on the part of the Church 
is really disqualified to serve as Deacon. But this is merely a con- 
ception of man, for which we find no support in the Bible. It might 
even be contended that, other things being equal, one who is himself 
hard-pressed is by that very fact better able to sympathize with a 
needv brother, than he who has never felt the pinch of poverty. 

3. The matter of deaconesses. 

It cannot be proven from Holy Writ that so-called deaconesses were 
actually called and ordained to office, just as the Deacons were. I Tim. 
3:11, quoted above, does indicate that women had a share in the work 
of mercy practiced by the early Churches. But in the absence of any 
indication that women were ever inducted into office we conclude that 
these deaconesses were appointed to assist the Deacons in an unofficial 
capacity. 

The Wezelian Convention, 1568, judged that it might be well to ap- 


114 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


point worthy women to the office under discussion. Evidently, the 
Convention did not mean that women should be ordained as Deacon- 
esses, but that they should be appointed to assist the Deacons. For in 
1581 the Classis of Wezel asked the Synod of Middelburg, 1581, 
whether it would not be “advisable to re-institute the office of deacon- 
esses.” But this Synod answered in the negative, “because of various 
inconveniences which might follow.” It did however declare that in 
times of wide-spread epidemics or much sickness, which called for 
nurse duties which the Deacons could not perform with propriety, the 
Deacons should call in the assistance of their wives, or other suitable 
women. 

And thus the Reformed Churches never ordained deaconesses. Never- 
theless women can do excellent and indispensable work as assistants 
to the Deacons. Neither the O.T. nor the N.T. knows of offices pe- 
culiar to women or open to men and women alike. God’s plan as re- 
vealed in Holy Writ, knows of no women as officials in God’s Church. 
Nevertheless also in this respect the woman is often a helpmeet for 
man. Women assisted Jesus, and also the Apostles, even in the 
prophetic work of the Church. So also our women can do wonderful 
service through our various Church organizations and if need be, in 
our Catechism classes, as well as in our Sunday schools. Thus also she 
can definitely assist the Deacons in the discharge of their duties. In 
our evangelization work at home or abroad she can take an active and 
useful part. And, as stands to reason, in non-ecclesiastical spheres she 
can occupy a place of Christian leadership, particularly through and 
for agencies definitely Christian, such as our Christian day schools. 


ARTICLE XXV 

The office peculiar to the Deacons is diligently to collect alms 
and other contributions of charity, and after mutual counsel , 
faithfully and diligently to distribute the same to the poor as 
their needs may require it; to visit and comfort the distressed 
and to exercise care that the alms are not misused; of which 
they shall render an account in Consistory, and also ( if anyone 
desires to be present ) to the Congregation, at such a time as 
the Consistory may see fit. 

THE DUTIES OF DEACONS 

Article 25 speaks of “the office peculiar to the Deacons.” Here 
again the Church Order does not refer to the essence of the Deacon’s 
office, but rather to the labors which Scripture attributes to Deacons. 
Five matters are mentioned in this article. They are: the diligent col- 
lection of alms and other contributions of charity; the faithful and 
diligent distribution of alms and other contributions of charity; the 
visiting and comforting of those that are in distress; the exercise of 
care against the misuse of alms; the rendering of periodic reports 
to the Consistory and Congregation concerning collections and dis- 
tributions made. We shall consider each of these. 

1. Collection of alms and other contributions of charity. 

First of all a word regarding the difference between “alms” and 
“other contributions of charity.” Strictly speaking, there is no dif- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


115 


ference. Alms, as the Dutch “aalmoezen,” are gifts of charity. The 
word has a general meaning. The English word as well as its Dutch 
equivalent stands related to a Greek word signifying, “to be merciful.” 
Up to the year 1581 the Church Order spoke only of alms, and did not 
refer to “other contributions of charity.” The Synod of Middelburg, 
1581, speaks of “de aalmoessen, en andere armengoederen.” Now it 
should not be overlooked that “other contributions of charity” is not a 
literal translation of “andere armengoederen.” The Dutch expression 
armengoederen is used to indicate legacies and other gifts in the form 
of real estate property given to the Diaconates for the benefit of the 
poor. Our translation, however, rather makes us think of gifts in the 
form of food, clothing, etc. 

It may also be noted that the expression “contributions of charity,” 
is a rather general one, also employed by the world at large. How- 
ever, in Article 25 it has a restricted significance. It does not merely 
signify “good-will contributions,” but rather contributions made in 
the first place for God’s sake, motivated by Christian love. 

Deacons then must collect and solicit these moneys and gifts for the 
poor. In times of special stress gifts in the form of food, clothing, 
etc., are very valuable. These are most conveniently solicited and 
collected on week-days. Gifts in the form of money should be collect- 
ed in the first place at the regular Sunday services, of which services 
gifts of gratitude are an integral part. When these gifts are in- 
adequate the Deacons should ask the Consistories to make the situation 
known to the Church. The preaching of the Word should also help 
make the congregation faithful in its contribution toward the needy 
poor. At times the Deacons may find it necessary to collect gifts of 
money from members in the Church who are blessed above the 
average. 

Years ago the benevolence offering for the poor was taken at the 
doors as the congregation was being dismissed. Our present method is 
doubtlessly more appropriate. Bringing our gifts of love and grati- 
tude to the Lord should be more than an appendix to the service. It is 
an actual part of the service. 

Our gifts must be given from the right motive and conscientiously, 
not to be seen and praised of men. Christ said: “But when thou doest 
alms, let not thy left hand know what they right hand doeth: that 
thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret 
shall recompense thee,” Matt. 6:3, 4. From these considerations some 
have preferred not to use open collection plates as are quite generally 
in use in our Churches today, but rather pocket-like receptacles, a 
convenient type of which are still on the market today. We fail to 
see, however, that our open collection plates greatly promote the sins 
against which Christ warns in Matthew 6. The possibilities at least 
are very limited, and can never be ruled out entirely, no matter what 
type of receptacle may be used. 

It is altogether proper for our Diaconates to urge able relatives of 
needy poor to do their Christian duty first of all. Parents that are 
able to do so are in duty bound to help needy children though these 
have long since left the parental fireside. And children likewise should 
be anxious to help their needy parents. This all is so obvious that 
argument is unnecessary. And Deacons should not permit delinquency 
on this score to go unheeded and unreported. 

Neither would it be out of place for Deacons to solicit employment 
for their needy poor, if it appears that assistance to secure work is 
needed. Not that our Diaconates must stand ready to answer every- 
one’s beck and call in this respect. But in exceptional cases an of- 


116 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ficial request from one of our Church Diaconates might do what mere 
individual effort failed to accomplish. In such a case Deacons ou*rht 
to act. Prevention is better than a cure we sa'\ So also in this case, 
termination is better than continuation. 

Money-raising schemes, such as bazaars, suppers, etc., should never 
be resorted to by our representatives of Christ as merciful High 
Priest. 

In extreme circumstances it may be necessary to seek government 
aid. Conditions, for instance, during recent years may have forced our 
Deacons to advise needy brethren to apply for county aid, or these 
conditions may have caused some of our Diaconates to accept govern- 
ment aid offered them by government agencies in the form of food and 
clothing. But these situations are never ideal. The Lord’s poor should 
be relieved by the Lord’s own people, from love and gratitude toward 
Him. To help relieve Churches in great need, also during days of 
economic depressions, all of our Churches should maintain a goodly 
surplus in their poor funds, so that the strong and the favored can 
come to the assistance of those that are in distress. In our care for 
the poor we are often too individualistic. We should feel the tie that 
binds us together in Christ and help each other, rather than permit 
poverty stricken Churches to appeal to the government for aid. It 
is true that as tax-payers we are helping to create the funds with 
which the government supports its indigent subjects. But this is 
merely our duty as citizens. Over and above this, if at all possible, 
we should support our own needy, so that they need not depend upon 
the world or upon the government. 

2. The distribution. 

Why does the Church Order stipulate that distribution must be made 
“faithfully and diligently”? 

For more than one reason. In the first place, the Deacon’s work is 
very much the Lord’s work. And in the Lord’s work we should always 
be faithful — true and loyal — to the charge committed, and diligent — 
zealous and prompt — as well. Moreover, the work to which our Dea- 
cons are called is the Lord’s work of mercy. Unfaithfulness and 
laxity are altogether out of place where mercy is needed. Suffering 
and want must be relieved faithfully and promptly. Furthermore, 
again and again the Deacons will find that the need which calls for 
help is rather urgent inasmuch as many do not call for aid until dire 
want compels them. Consequently “God’s Ministers of Mercy” must 
be on the look-out constantly and be ready to act with promptness. 

The Deacons should bring their gifts to those in need as friends of 
Christ to friends of Christ, standing on par with them. Attitudes of 
superiority on the part of the Deacons would be altogether out of 
place. And therefore, under ordinary circumstances the gifts of Chris- 
tian charity to the Lord’s needy should be given directly to the parties 
concerned in their own homes. Ordinarily they should not be required 
to call for them at stipulated hours, as was sometimes done in former 
years. 

According to which standard must distribution be made ? The 
Church Order says that distribution must be made to the poor “as 
their needs may require it.” The daily needs of the indigent in the 
midst of the Church must be supplied. That which ordinary comfort 
requires must be given. This is according to Biblical example: “And 
distribution was made unto each, according as anyone had need,” Acts 
4:35. None of the needy should suffer lack where such can be avoided, 
though it is also true that the Church should not give for needless 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


117 


luxuries. If times are hard and consequently the needy poor numer- 
ous, the Deacons must do all they can to meet each one’s need, but 
they may be forced to reduce their distribution below the bare mini- 
mum proportionately. But never should this be done until the Church 
has done its utmost to meet its responsibility toward the Lord’s poor 
fully. And needless to say. in the spirit of Christian mercy, none 
should ever begrudge a needy brother or sister a little more than he 
or she actually needs. Liberality toward our poor should never be 
frowned upon, but always encouraged. 

What is the significance of the phrase “after mutual consent”? Our 
Deacons are not allowed to act independently, as individuals in the 
collection and distribution of gifts. The needs of those that require 
support, temporarily or more permanently, should be discussed at a 
Deacons’ Meeting, so that they together, upon due investigation or 
trustworthy information may decide what is to be done. “After mutual 
counsel” the Deacons shall thus make distribution. This does not 
mean th,at in special emergencies one or two Deacons may never act 
independently and instantly. For instance, sickness or accidents may 
call emergency situations into existence and may require instant re- 
lief. But such cases will be the exceptions, and should always be re- 
ported in full at the very next Deacons’ Meeting for the approval, or 
else disapproval, of the whole body. And let us not forget, the 
exception does not alter the rule. Some Churches have an emergency 
committee to which emergency cases are referred. Much can be said 
in favor of such committees. 

Mutual counsel is necessary also because our Deacons administer 
mercy in name of the whole congregation. Now a number of office- 
bearers acting in unison give better expression to this principle than 
individual and independent action could do. Moreover, mutual counsel 
greatly reduces the possibilities of arbitrariness and faulty decisions. 
In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom. 

3. Visiting and comforting thosie in distress. 

Why does the Church Order specify that Deacons shall “visit and 
comfort the distressed” ? Because our Deacons represent, as has been 
said before, Christ in the dispensation of His mercy. Our Diaconates 
are therefore far more than committees for relief work. They must 
relieve want and distress, but not in a mere functional way, as the 
county or state would do, but with a heart of sympathy and love. And 
they must give not merely with a humanitarian sympathy and love, 
but with the sympathy and love of Christ Himself. This requires in- 
terest and a personal, warm touch which only a personal visit can 
convey. Moreover, sometimes the distressed may not need money, 
food, or clothing nearly as much as assistance in some other form, 
such as sick care, or words of comfort from Holy Writ. Our Form 
for the installations of Elders and Deacons very appropriately states 
that one of the tasks of our Deacons is to relieve “the distressed both 
with kindly deeds and words of consolation and cheer from Scripture.” 
This phase of the Deacon’s work is very important and very beautiful. 
But to a large extent this all-important work of Christ as merciful 
High-Priest is forgotten and neglected. Some Churches seem to prefer 
young men as Deacons, especially if they have some business ability. 
Spiritual qualifications and Christian experience, which are certainly 
very essential for one who shall have to “visit and comfort the dis- 
tressed,” are forgotten all too generally. 


118 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


4. Care against misuse of alms. 

Regarding this rather difficult and delicate matter it is impossible to 
lay down a general rule which our Deacons can just apply in a uni- 
form and press-the-button fashion. We live in a world of sin and we 
deal with imperfect men and women, — also in the Church. Now, 
nearly all who draw from congregational poor funds do so only under 
stress of circumstances. They will, of course, exercise great care not 
to misuse that which comes to them by way of Christian charity from 
the Church of God. But some that are in want and distress are, to say 
the least, poor managers, if not wilfully careless. Now the Church 
may not condone the appropriation of the Lord’s benevolence money 
for unnecessary luxuries or wasteful expenditures. And so if there is 
just cause for suspicion on the part of the Deacons on this score, they 
should confer with the parties concerned, and sympathetically but 
firmly tell them that the practice in question can not continue. If it 
does continue, support should be given in kind, that is, in the form of 
food, clothing, etc. However, our Deacons must never play the part of 
“inquisitors.” The God-given responsibilities and liberties of brothers 
and sisters in Christ should ever be respected by them. They must, in 
the spirit of Christian charity, avoid all suspicious questioning and 
needless wounding. Only when necessity compels them should they 
go beyond an ordinary investigation. 

5. Rendering periodic reports. 

Our Diaconates are, under normal circumstances, separate bodies, 
but never independent bodies. In many of our Churches however they 
always meet with the Elders as a Consistory, and at these meetings all 
the diaconal affairs are discussed and decided upon. But normally, ac- 
cording to the set-up of our Church Order, our Deacons have their 
separate meetings, at which they deliberate and also decide and act. 
But all their decisions and actions must be reported to the Consistory 
for approval. Reformed church polity knows only one ruling body in 
the Church and that is the Consistory, ideally consisting of the ruling 
and teaching Elders, or, putting it in our present terminology, con- 
sisting of Ministers and Elders. The government of the Church has 
been entrusted by Christ to the bishops, shepherds, or Elders. Con- 
sequently they also, according to Biblical precept and example, have 
supervision over the service of the Word and Sacraments by the Min- 
isters and over the service of mercy by the Deacons. The Church 
Order accords our Diaconates a certain amount of independent activity, 
which should not be ignored, neglected, and infringed upon. But the 
unity of the Church and of the various offices in Christ as head of the 
Church requires that they should submit regular reports of their work 
to the Consistory for approval. 

But the concluding provision of Article 25 also provides that a 
report shall be rendered to the congregation. Why so? Not that the 
congregation may give official approval or disapproval, for the Consis- 
tory is the only ruling body in and for the congregation. However 
the work of the Deacons is, after all, not the work of the personnel of 
the Diaconate, nor of the Consistory, but it is the work of the whole 
congregation. When our Deacons perform deeds of mercy or give gifts 
of Christian charity then the Church as a whole does this through 
them in the name of Christ. Conseouently, the congregation should 
be informed. And the Deacons should stand in close touch with the 
membership of the Church. Therefore they should report to the con- 
gregation periodically under the direction of the Consistory. Of course, 
these reports should be general. Names and amounts should be re- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


119 


ported to the Consistory but not to the congregation. That would be 
out of keeping with the spirit of Christian love. Moreover, the congre- 
gation is not interested in names and individual amounts, but rather 
in the fact that its work of mercy is properly carried on; that the 
needy poor, and the widows and orphans, and the sick and distressed 
are properly supplied, provided for and visited. 

Beyond a doubt this provision of our Church Order is a very excel- 
lent ope. But as many of its excellent and wise provisions have fallen 
into disuse to a large extent, so also this one. To our hurt and the 
hurt of our ecclesiastical work of mercy no doubt. 


ARTICLE XXVI 

In places where others are devoting themselves to the care of 
the poor , the Deacons shall seek a mutual understanding with 
them to the end that the alms may all the better be distributed 
among those who have greatest need. Moreover , they shall 
make it possible for the poor to make use of institutions of 
mercy , and to that end they shall request the Board of Directors 
of such institutions to keep in close touch with them. It is also 
desirable that the Deaconates assist and consult one another , 
especially in caring for the poor in such institutions. 

DIACONAL CO-OPERATION 

In this article the Church Order provides first of all for contacts be- 
tween our diaconates and other agencies caring for those in want; 
secondly for contacts between our diaconates and Christian institu- 
tions of mercy; lastly, for mutual co-operation and assistance on the 
part of various diaconates. 

1. The historical background of Article 26. 

When our Synod of 1914 adopted the present reading of our Church 
Order it merely accepted an up-to-date rendering of the Church Order 
of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19. The Church Order was garbed 
in present day Dutch, (largely modeled after the rendering accepted 
by the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in 1905) and obsolete 
provisions applicable to conditions no longer extant were replaced by 
rulings which time and circumstances now require. 

Article 26 as it had stood since 1618-19 was one of the articles that 
was well-nigh entirely out of date, especially as to the terminology 
employed. The original article reads as follows: “De Diakenen zullen 
ter plaatse waar huiszittenmeesters of andere aalmoezeniers zijn, van 
dezen begeeren goede correspondents met hen te willen houden, 
teneinde de almoezen te beter uitgedeeld mogen worden onder degenen 
die meest gebrek hebben.” 

Amongst many other things the Reformation of the 16th Century 
also restored the Diaconate as a divine and Biblical institution. In 
the Roman Church, Deacons were and are still subservient helpers to 
the priests. In the Reformed Churches the Deacons again became 
ministers of mercy, representatives of Christ as merciful High-Priest. 

Now the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands very logically 
claimed that the possessions and moneys which were originally given 
to the Churches in their deformed condition for the alleviation of pov- 


120 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


erty and suffering, should go to them and their Deacons and not to the 
government agencies for relief work. But not in every case did the 
government agree. In many instances the government wanted to ad- 
minister all poor relief work. Not so much as a matter of Christian 
mercy, but more as a matter of state business. The Churches, how- 
ever, notwithstanding the close connection between Church and State 
at this time, everywhere instituted the office of the Deacons and in- 
sisted on maintaining their own poor relief work, and that not merely 
in the secular or humanitarian sense, but in the Biblical sense of show- 
ing mercy to Christ’s own in His stead. 

But the government also appointed its poor relief agencies. It was 
soon discovered that certain parties would receive aid through the 
Church of their locality and also from the local government agency, 
whereas others suffered from insufficient support. To avoid needless 
duplication and to conserve funds for necessary relief, the Churches 
decided that the Deacons should request “goede correspondents” 
(literally translated, “good correspondence”) from the government 
agencies for poor relief. No doubt they meant by “good correspond- 
ence” that each should report to the other to whom aid was extended. 
Let us remember in this connection that the tie between the govern- 
ment and the Churches was a very close one in former years. The 
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands were at that time the only 
church organization officially recognized as such, and even to a certain 
extent sponsored by the government. Especially the Church Orders 
prior to the great Synod of Dort exemplify this close connection 
abundantly. 

2. Contacts with other agencies. 

What is the significance of the first provision of Article 20 as it 
now reads? Today we still find that poor relief is extended through 
government agencies. Moreover, we have our Red Cross and a host of 
more local charitable organizations as a rule. These agencies regularly 
or in times of special stress extend the helping hand to those in want, 
regardless of Church affiliations. Now to avoid needless extension of 
help Article 26 provides that our Diaconates are to request “good cor- 
respondence” (Dutch rendering, 1914) with these agencies. The of- 
ficial English translation speaks of a “mutual understanding.” This 
term is no doubt stronger than its. Dutch equivalent. The Dutch 
rendering, also in the light of history, merely acknowledges the fact 
that some of our needy Church members at times receive aid from 
agencies outside of the Church. It does not commit itself in favor of 
this situation, not even by implication. From our English redaction it 
might be inferred that it is the position of our Churches that secular 
support of our Church members is perfectly proper and normal. How- 
ever, it is the position of all loyal Reformed Churches that the Church 
of Christ must fully take care of its own needy. Needy and afflicted 
children of God should never be compelled to seek aid from the world, 
but should be assisted by their own brothers and sisters in Christ. 
That is the Biblical rule. That is the ideal. And only when dire 
necessity forces us should we deviate from this rule and ideal. Con- 
sequently we would prefer “adequate correspondence,” “necessary 
contacts” or some kindred term to the present “mutual understanding.” 

Or better still, we would prefer to eliminate this whole provision. 
In its original form it dates back to a semi-State Church condition 
regulating somewhat an irregular state of affairs. For our condition 
and situation the present provision is either not necessary, or impos- 
sible of adequate execution, in view of the numerous agencies which 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


121 


are engaged in relief work. And as the provision stands it obscures a 
principle, namely that the Church is fully responsible for its own 
needy. If in times of special stress some of our people must seek and 
accept aid from other agencies, then common sense will tell our 
Deacons that they must avoid duplication by all legitimate means. We 
really need no Church Order provision for this. 

3. Contacts with institutions of mercy. 

The second provision of Article 26, stipulating that the Deacons 
“shall make it possible for the poor to make use of institutions of 
mercy,” etc., as well as the balance of this article, is an addition of our 
Christian Reformed Churches. The original article contains nothing 
of this. The Reformed Churches of Holland, which accepted a revi- 
sion of the Church Order in 1905, left Article 26 unchanged. Conse- 
quently this second provision of Article 26 and what follows it, is 
not found in the Church Order of Holland. 

The significance of this ruling is obvious to all who know our peo- 
ple and their activities somewhat. During the last quarter of a cen- 
tury our people have had a very prominent part in erecting two in- 
stitutions for the Christian care of the mentally abnormal, and one 
for the Christian care of tubercular patients. Besides, at various 
centers there are Holland Homes, or Homes for the Aged, which are 
also in part at least, institutions of mercy. 

A large number of afflicted could not be placed in the first-named 
institutions for lack of funds. Diaconates began to aid the afflicted or 
their relatives financially, so that this very necessary Christian care 
could be shared by such as would otherwise have to forego this privi- 
lege. To assure the continuance of this practice the second provision 
of Article 26 was added to this Article. 

It is well that our readers of 1914 exercised this wise forethought 
and added this timely ruling to Article 26. It is altogether proper that 
the Deacons extend their helping hand to members who need institu- 
tional care. This is self-evident to us- But future generations might 
grow lax in this respect. This provision may help to avoid neglect, or 
to recall delinquents to duty. 

. . they shall request the Board of Directors of such institutions to 
keep in close touch with them.” This part of the ruling most likely 
refers to individual cases. If there be a member of one of our 
Churches who receives care at an institution of Christian mercy, but 
who is unable to pay the required sum, then the authorities of the 
institution concerned should notify the Diaconate concerned. This 
would also hold when application is made for admittance and the nec- 
essary amount cannot be paid by the party or parties involved. 

But this latter provision might also be interpreted to mean that any 
and all Diaconates ought to ask all institutions of mercy in which our 
group is particularly interested, to keep in close touch with them, so 
that they may be well-informed as to the work and needs of these in- 
stitutions and be ready to extend aid in any particular case that may 
occur. 

To the best of our knowledge, the former interpretation is the gen- 
erally accepted one. 

4. The matter of ecclesiastical institutions of mercy. 

There have been those that would prefer to see the Churches build 
and maintain institutions of Christian mercy, instead of leaving this to 
other organizations. Others have contended that it is not the busi- 
ness of the Church to take this matter to hand. The Church, so they 


122 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


say, must preach the Gospel, and leave the building and managing of 
institutions of mercy to groups of believers organized into societies for 
this purpose. Secondly, those that do not favor ecclesiastical institu- 
tions of mercy state that this would require a separate and powerful 
ecclesiastical organization of Diaconates, whereas Reformed Church 
polity knows hut one type of ruling or governing bodies, viz.: Con- 
sistories, Classes, Synods. Church-owned and Church-managed in- 
stitutions of mercy would require the organization of a second type 
of ruling bodies, which would run counter to the divine plan, and 
create confusion and dualism. There are other considerations of a more 
practical nature, but these two are the main objections. 

The first of these arguments we do not care to support. Jesus in- 
deed charged His Church to preach the Gospel, but He also charged it 
to heal the sick. And the Church represents Him as merciful High 
Priest as well as great Prophet and eternal King. Of course, the 
plan would involve the Church in business transactions. But what of 
this? It may be practical wisdom to reduce the Church’s business 
transactions to a minimum, but speaking from the aspect of principles, 
this is not a requirement. The construction and care of church build- 
ings is business, too. 

Regarding the second objection we quote our late Prof. Heyns rather 
at length: “On almost every Diaconal Conference, as Prof. Biesterveld 
relates (Het Diaconaat, p. 386), the question was brought forward 
whether it was not possible to come to representative diaconal meet- 
ings with power to act. In 1888 a treatise was published by Prof. W. 
Vanden Bergh of the Free University, 1 in which the creation of such 
an organization of the Diaconates of Classes and Provinces was advo- 
cated. In the same year the Diaconal Congress adopted the following 
proposition: ‘Especially with a view to social problems, to the provid- 
ing and maintenance of institutions of mercy for the care of the blind, 
the deaf-mute, the orphans, the insane, etc., it is desirable that there 
be joint meetings of the Diaconates of Classes and Provinces, charged 
and authorized; a) to discuss social problems and miseries, their 
causes and cure; b) to establish or maintain institutions for the care 
of the blind, etc.; c) to tend to the matter of well-to-do Diaconates 
rendering assistance to the poorly provided ones. In 1899, however, 
the question was brought before the General Synod of Groningen, and 
its decision was, ‘that the organization of separate major Assemblies 
for diaconal matters was not in agreement with the mutual relation 
and co-operation of Church Assemblies as these are presented by the 
Confession and the Church Order.’ 

“In the meantime a different way of bringing about contact and the 
possibility of co-operation of the local Diaconates had been proposed by 
Dr. Bavinck (Dogmatiek, IV, 2nd ed., p. 469). It was that Deacons, 
together with Ministers and Elders, should be delegated to major As- 
semblies, and should have in these major Assemblies a decisive vote in 
all matters pertaining to the service of mercy.’! 2 , 

This suggestion of Bavinck, vigorously seconded by Heyns, would 
evidently meet the well-founded second objection against Church- 
owned and Church-managed institutions of mercy. Incidentally, it 
would give the Diaconates of our Churches the consideration and de- 
velopment to which they are entitled. Nevertheless we fear that for 
various reasons this suggestion would prove to be impractical. How- 


1. Thi§. should read: “Dr. Mr. W. VandenBergh, Minister at Voorthuizen,” 
Vanden Bergh never having been professor at any school. 

2. Prof. Wm. Heyns: Handbook for Elders and Deacons, pp. 350-1. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


123 


ever as far as the principle involved in this question is concerned, we 
would ask: Why should the Church as an institution be required to 
delegate a very important branch of its work of mercy to certain 
groups of believers? There are, no doubt, a number of practical ob- 
jections against diaconal institutions of mercy. For instance: Diaconal 
institutions of mercy would make co-operation with believers of other 
denominations more difficult. But on the score of principles we failed 
to locate a valid one. And there are also practical considerations 
which favor diaconal institutions of mercy. 

Dr. F. L. Rutgers (Kerkelijke Adviezen, I, p. 210) cites instances 
which show that diaconal institutions of mercy, managed by large 
Diaconates under supervision of the Consistories, were not entirely 
unknown in the past. In fact some of the Reformed Churches in 
Holland still maintain their own institutions of mercy. 

5. Mutual consultation and assistance. 

Article 26 finally suggests mutual consultation and assistance. Co- 
operation between our various diaconates, particularly neighboring 
diaconates, is certainlv proper. There are practical considerations 
which make co-operation advisable. For instance: One Church may 
have many needy in the providence of God and but little ability to 
help. Another Church may have but few needy and numerous well-to- 
do members who can help those in need. Moreover, the inherent unity 
of all the Churches, and denominational unity, would suggest co- 
operation also. “Bear ye one another's burden," holds here as well as 
elsewhere. 

Note well that Article 26 does not say that our Diaconates should 
hold combined gatherings, such as classical and synodical gatherings 
are. The Church Order merely urges consultation and assistance. 

Regarding the spelling of the word Deaconates in Article 26 see 
our comments on page 167. 


ARTICLE XXVII. 

The Elders and Deacons shall serve two or more years ac- 
cording to local regulations , and a proportionate number shall 
retire each year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by 
others unless the circumstances and the profit of any Churchy 
in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a re-election ad- 
visable. 

TENURE OF OFFICE FOR ELDERS AND DEACONS 

Article 27 first of all speaks of the length of time for which Elders 
and Deacons are to be chosen and appointed. Secondly this article 
provides for definite retirement of these office-bearers, though it per- 
mits exceptions to this rule. 

1, Limited tenure of office for Elders and Deacons. 

The Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. differentiates between 
Term or Rotary Eldership, and Permanent Eldership. Doctrinally the 
Presbyterian Churches hold that all the offices of the Church are per- 
manent. He who is once inducted into office, whether as Minister, 
Elder, or Deacon, remains in office as long as he remains a member 


124 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


in good standing of the Presbyterian Church. Removal from the 
particular Church which inducted him into office, or old age, does 
terminate the active execution of office, but he does not lose the office 
as suclu 

When referring to this conception and practice consistent with it 
the Presbyterians speak of Permanent Eldership. 

However, certain practical difficulties obstructed the practice of Per- 
manent Eldership. After much discussion the General Assembly of 
1875 authorized Term or Rotary Eldership. That is to say, Elders 
might be elected for a definite term of years as far as the actual exe- 
cution of their office is concerned. But the principle underlying Per- 
manent Eldership was maintained. Elders may either be elected for 
life or for a term of three years. Term Elders may retire from active 
service at the end of their term, but they continue to be office-bearers. 
It was even decided, consistently so, that: “Elders, once ordained, shall 
not be divested of the office when they are not re-elected.” Such 
Elders, in common with all retired Elders, have no vote in their Ses- 
sion (Consistory), but may be asked for advice and may also be sent 
as delegates to the meetings of Presbyteries, Synods, and General 
Assemblies. At a later period “Term Deaconship” was also made 
permissible. 

Our Church Order in this present article stipulates a limited tenure 
of office for Elders and Deacons. How do we account for this fact? 
Historically this provision of Article 27 dates back to none other 
than John Calvin himself. Calvin and his co-workers re-instituted the 
Elders’ and Deacons’ office in the Reformed Churches. Now Calvin 
found no definite stipulation in the Bible which compelled him to look 
upon these offices as permanent in their very essence. Nowhere does 
the Bible even says — thus Calvin — that appointment to these offices in 
the days of the Apostles was for life, although it must be granted 
forthwith that term appointment is not mentioned either. Scripture, 
in the absence of definite stipulations, so the Reformers concluded, 
leaves this matter free, so that the Churches may regulate this mat- 
ter according to their own best interests and welfare. 

Now, to avoid a repetition of Roman misuse of power through its 
hierarchical system from which the Churches had suffered so much, 
and because very few brethren could afford to give much of their 
time to church work continuously, Calvin thought it wise to appoint 
Elders and Deacons, not for life, but for a limited period of time. 
In Geneva they were appointed for one-year terms only. The Re- 
formed Churches in Holland followed Calvin’s example. The Wezelian 
Convention still spoke of one-year terms. Those who were able and 
competent might be continued. Why such extremely short terms, and 
that in a day when everything moved much slower? To avoid misuse 
of power. But especially because the demands were very heavy on 
the time of the Elders especially. All the Churches were young. Many 
church members had been reared in the Roman Church. Consequently 
they were very ignorant as to the true faith and they were constantly 
surrounded and confronted with all kinds of problems and dangers to 
their spiritual life. For a while, as we had occasion to mention here- 
tofore, the Elders were expected to conduct home-visitation with 
every family of the Church every week, each Elder having his own 
district for this purpose. 

Soon, however, already in 1571, the normal period of service for 
Elders and Deacons became two years. Continuation in office, by de- 
cision of the Consistory with the approbation of the congregation, or 
immediate re-election by the congregation, were made permissible, if 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 125 

the welfare of a particular Church seemed to demand this. But defi- 
nite retirement for the ensuing year became the rule. 

Gradually the period of service was lengthened in many Churches. 
Yet, inasmuch as there were no Synodical gatherings for the 17th to 
the 19th century, Article 27 remained unaltered. However, in 1905 
the Churches of Holland revised the Article as we now have it, their 
redaction having been adopted by us in 1914. 

We appreciate the element of flexibility which we find in this article 
also. Why make hard and fast rules when such is not necessary and 
often contrary to the true welfare of the Churches? “Two or more 
years.” Two years may be advisable in exceptional cases, but as a 
rule a two-year term is too brief. A Consistory, to do consistent and 
thorough work, needs a certain amount of stability and continuity. 
Short terms do not make for these desirable qualities. In Churches 
where the two-year term is in force, every twelfth month one-half of 
the Consistory is unacquainted with matters that may be pending. 
Continuity is promoted by less frequent and less complete changes. 
In the Netherlands many Churches today elect their Elders and 
Deacons for four or five or even six-year terms. Most of our Churches 
seem to maintain three-year terms. 

Why does the Church Order stipulate that a proportionate number 
of Elders and Deacons shall retire each year? Obviously to rule out 
all arbitrariness. All things pertaining to God’s Church should be 
conducted with due order and impartial regularity. If the retirement 
of office-bearers and their induction into office were not definitely 
regulated thus, misuse of power on the part of Consistories might oc- 
cur with greater ease. Suppose, for an example, a certain Consistory 
should become unfaithful and disloyal as to the majority of its 
members. Then, if the common Church Order did not oblige them to 
do otherwise, they might so manipulate the retirement of office- 
bearers as to hold the balance of power. 

This provision makes for good order and regularity. It shields Con- 
sistories against suspicion on the score of what we mentioned, and 
safeguards the Churches against evil practices which might other- 
wise creep in with greater ease. 

2. Definite retirement. 

Article 27 provides for definite retirement from office. That is to 
say, when one’s term of office expires he is not immediately eligible 
to re-election to that office. 

Against the practice of definite retirement the following considera- 
tions have been urged: 

— The Church of Christ is worthy of the best talents at all times. 
The Church should not be compelled to pass by efficient men, not 
even for one year. 

— Those that have served well should continue to serve without in- 
terruption, for the Churches need experienced men. 

— The number of brethren well qualified in every way to serve is 
limited as it is. Their numbers should not be limited needlessly 
still further. 

— Definite retirement reduces the prestige of the office which it 
sorely needs. Former respect for Elders, for instance, is fast 
waning. 

— Definite retirement does not make for continuity, an element 
highly desirable for good Consistory work. 

— Definite retirement promotes laxness as to studious application 


126 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


on the part of Consistory members, inasmuch as their service is 
only temporary. 

— Definite retirement breaks the connecting link between office- 
bearers and the work of the major assemblies, to the hurt of both. 

In favor of definite retirement the following considerations are the 
most weighty : 

— Continuous service in Consistory would constitute a real hardship 
for many busy and burdened men. Many would feel compelled to 
withhold themselves altogether. 

— Long continued periods of service in Consistory tends to promote 
hierarchical tendencies. Experience has taught that when men 
have served for a long period of years continuously, they are in- 
clined to feel indispensable, and are inclined to become wilful. 

— Definite retirement helps to ward off conservatism. Elderly men 
naturally tend to become overly conservative and immediate eligi- 
bility for re-election as a rule tends to keep the same men in 
office continuously, until they are too old to serve, and sometimes 
beyond that period. 

— Definite retirement brings to the fore and puts into the harness 
new talents, while the others, if they have served well, enjoy a 
well-earneci rest, ready to serve again in due season. 

— Retired office-bearers are a good influence in the midst of the 
congregation. 

— Inferior men (inferior as far as their work and ability as office- 
bearers is concerned, though they may be very good in doctrine 
and life)^ are thus retired from service in the least offensive way. 

Although it must be admitted that there are good arguments on 
both sides of £his question, yet those favoring definite retirement 
doubtlessly outweigh the arguments against the practice. We do be- 
lieve, however, that the term of service could be lengthened in many 
of our Churches beyond the present-day two- and three-year limit, to 
very good advantage. This would somewhat meet the altogether 
valid objections against definite retirement. 

3. Definite retirement not always required. 

Definite retirement has been the rule in the Reformed Churches of 
our fathers ever since the Reformation, although at certain periods 
and at times it fell into disuse. But our fathers never held that it 
was the only possible way. Nor that it was for all Churches and 
under all circumstances the best policy. 

In small Churches definite retirement would very often work real 
harm and hardship. In other Churches, though larger, it may be im- 
possible to secure a sufficient number of worthy men for the nomina- 
tions without including the names of retiring Consistory-members. 
For all such exceptional cases we have the provision that immediate 
renomination is permissible. The true welfare of the Churches is of 
far greater importance than adherence to a general rule adopted to 
promote the welfare of the Churches, but application of which in 
some cases would be to the detriment of the Churches. 

Wherever conditions make immediate eligibility advisable, Consisto- 
ries should not hesitate to make use of this exceptive provision. 

A few practical questions, related to the material of Art. 27 still 
await our reply. 

Should the number of Elders and Deacons always be equal? Not 
necessarily. In the majority of our Churches it may be perfectly 
proper to appoint an equal number of each. But in many Churches 
today there is much more work for the Elders than for the Deacons, 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


127 


and consequently a larger number of Elders should be appointed, if 
at least suitable men are available. 

Supposing a Consistory desires to nominate a retiring Deacon for 
Elder or vice versa, would this be permissible in view of Art. 27 ? 
Yes. This article provides that no Elder shall immediately succeed 
himself as Elder, and no Deacon shall immediately succeed himself 
as Deacon. But one who retires from one office could be chosen to 
another office without any lapse of time. If someone has served as 
Deacon, and the Consistory finds that he has gifts for the Elder’s 
office, then such a Consistory may instantly nominate him. It stands 
to reason, however, that it is better to wait if a sufficient number of 
men are available. But if the Consistory nominates such a one im- 
mediately, no rule is violated. In fact, one whose term as Elder or 
Deacon has not yet expired, may, even if circumstances render the 
step advisable, be nominated for the other office. If such a nominee 
is elected, the Church immediately elects his successor to the office 
which is thus vacated, from among the candidates nominated for the 
office concerned. 

Some find fault with their Consistories when they nominate as 
office-bearers men who have retired the previous year. They would 
favor a rule which would discourage early renomination. Would such 
a rule be advisable ? We answer in the negative. The Churches should 
be served by the best and most experienced of its members. Why sys- 
tematically eliminate previous office-bearers longer than one year? 
If said former office-bearers are unworthy of the office, or if better 
qualified brethren are available, these brethren in the providence of 
God will eventually be chosen. The Churches, after all, elect. Ex- 
office-bearers that are inferior and undesirable are naturally passed 
by, either at the Consistory meeting or at the congregational meeting. 

Suppose the newly elected office-bearers cannot be inducted into 
office at the appointed time, do they begin to function without installa- 
tion? Synod of 1912 decided that in case the installation of newly- 
elected Elders and Deacons must be postponed for weighty reasons, 
the tenure of the retiring Elders and Deacons is extended, and they 
remain legal trustees of the Church. 


ARTICLE XXVIII. 

The Consistory shall take care , that the Churches for the 
possession of their property , and the peace and order of their 
meetings can claim the protection of the Authorities; it should 
be weU understood , however , that for the sake of peace and 
material possession they! may never suffer the royal government 
of Christ over His Church to be in the least infringed upon. 

GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION 

The present article has but a brief history. It first saw the light 
of day as recently as 1914, having been adopted by our Synod of that 
year. Nearly all the articles of our Church Order wear the honorable 
crown of old age, and come to us with the prestige of antiquity, hav- 
ing been written and adopted by Reformed Synods before the year 
1600, and having been reviewed and approbated by the great Synod 


128 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of Dort, 1618-19. And so Article 28 is as a youthful child standing: 
in the midst of men of mature years. 

1. The original 28th article. 

Of course, there was an Article 28 also before 1914. But its content 
and provision seemed out of date and out of position to our Synod 
of 1914, especially for our Churches in the United States of America. 
The Reformed Churches of Holland, in their revision of 1905, have 
left Article 28 unchanged. The following is our own rendering hi 
English of the original 28th Article: “As it is the duty of the Chris- 
tian governments to promote the sacred services of the Churches as 
much as possible, and to recommend their activity to all their subjects 
by personal example, and to assist the Ministers, Elders and Deacons 
in all cases of need or emergency, and to protect them in the execu- 
tion of their tasks as governors of the Churches, so also the Ministers* 
Elders and Deacons are in duty bound zealously and in sincerity to 
urge obedience, love and respect toward the magistrates upon the 
whole congregation; they shall, moreover, make themselves good ex- 
amples to the Church in this matter, and through the manifestation 
of due respect and the establishment of correspondence with the civil 
authorities they shall endeavor to secure and hold the good-will of 
the government toward the Churches; to the end that, each doing his 
duty in the fear of the Lord, all suspicion and distrust may be avoided 
and that thus due co-operation may be maintained for the welfare of 
the Churches.” 

Jansen says it is not clear why the Synod of Dort added this ar- 
ticle. He suggests two possibilities, viz., (1) In order to secure civil 
approbation of the Church Order. This our post-Reformation fathers 
were very eager to secure. For that would mean that the Church Or- 
der would virtually have the force of civil law. And that in turn 
would promote the cause of Reformed Churches and unity. (2) To 
indicate clearly the duties and authority of both Government and 
Church, thus also committing themselves against the Arminian con- 
ception, which would virtually place the Government in authority 
over the Churches, and against the Roman conception which would 
subject the State to the Church. 

Historically the original reading of Article 28 is not without sig- 
nificance. It tells us in plain words what the Fathers of Dort thought 
as to the proper relation between Church and State. A question ever 
up-to-date to be sure. And one which may become very urgent at 
any time also in our own country. Confer government interference 
with Church affairs during the World War, and think of the situation 
in certain European countries. 

If Jansen is correct when he surmises that our Fathers adopted 
the original 28th Article because they desired to elevate the Church 
Order to the level of state laws through civil approbation, then in so 
far we would not concur. Neither do we today agree with all that 
the original article contains. But neither do we throw overboard every 
sentiment embodied in this article of 1618-19. 

We question the wisdom of our Synod of 1914 when it eliminated 
the original article altogether. True, however, that the loss is not as 
great as it might be, inasmuch as we have an official commitment 
and expression regarding the relation between Church and State on 
the part of our Churches today in Article 36 of the Confession and 
the decision of the Synod of 1910 appended. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


129 


2. The chief provision of the present 28th article. 

What is the chief provision of Article 28? That Consistories are 
in duty bound to secure proper recognition on the part of the Gov- 
ernment for their respective Churches. Not that our Churches hold 
that the secular government, local, state, or national, have authority 
over the ecclesiastical affairs of its subjects. Not that we would at- 
tribute any supervisory authority to the State in regard to matters 
ecclesiastical. Churches are inherently, by dint of their very nature, 
free from State domination and State regulation. But each congre- 
gation, as an institution among men, has certain rights and privi- 
leges. Our Churches have the right to buy and build; to serve God 
unmolested; to retain their properties, etc. The Government is the 
God-ordained institution among men which, amongst other things, 
must also secure to the Churches their liberties and rights. Now, to 
assure the Churches the maximum of protection, also if need be 
through the courts, they must have legal recognition on the part of 
the Government. The obtainment of this legal standing or legal rec- 
ognition Article 28 provides for. 

The article states that Consistories shall see to it that the Churches 
can claim the protection of the authorities. The responsibility regard- 
ing this matter is therefore placed with the Consistories. They are 
the governing bodies in our Reformed system and so this is perfectly 
proper. In the Congregational system (Congregational and Baptist 
Churches, etc.), a matter of this kind would be referred to the con- 
gregation as a whole. Not so with us. This, however, do-es not mean 
that the congregation takes no action in this matter, and that the 
Consistory is the legal body which is incorporated. For the individual 
believers act also here. But under the direction and control of the 
office-bearers appointed. 

We stated above that Article 28 does not mean to attribute super- 
visory authority to the Government, and that the Churches of Jesus 
Christ are inherently free from State domination. This is certainly 
correct. The Churches know no King but Jesus. Under Him they are 
sovereign within their own sphere. However, we do not mean to deny 
that the State has certain regulatory rights, which also touch the 
domain of the Churches. Civil authorities, for instance, may insist, 
for the safety of all concerned, that the general rules of fire preven- 
tion be observed as we erect our church buildings. For the protection 
of the health of the church-members, as well as for the community, 
they have a right to insist on proper sanitation. In matters as these 
the State authorities have a certain God-given responsibility, also re- 
garding Churches. But as to matters of faith and confession; the 
internal arrangement of congregational activities; the government of 
the Church in spiritual matters, etc., these matters are strictly ecclesi- 
astical, and not political. And concerning these matters the Church 
may and must say to the State: Hands off! 

How” should this provision be carried out? Through incorporation. 
This is evidently the intent of Article 28. It is true that also unin- 
corporate groups are entitled to the protection of civil authorities, but 
the phrase, “for the possession of their property ,” clearly refers to 
incorporation. This was so self-evident to the Synod of 1914 that it 
did not even deem it necessary to use this term in formulating this 
article. The list of questions for Church Visitation approbated by 
Synod of 1922 does contain a specific query regarding proper incor- 
poration. 

Every State in our Union has provided for the incorporation of 
Church groups. After incorporation papers have been filed with the 


130 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Secretary of State, usually through the County Clerk, and after these 
have been properly approved and registered, the congregation has 
legal standing. As a corporate body it may transact its material af- 
fairs ana claim the protection of the courts in case of necessity. 
Always within the terms of the incorporation document, of course. 
Without incorporation a Church may organize itself in our country 
and also transact its material business, but in cases of emergency it 
could never claim the protection of the courts. Ordinary police pro- 
tection, etc., could be secured under normal circumstances, also by 
unincorporated Churches. 

The main purpose for which incorporation is urged upon the 
Churches is no doubt to assure the Churches against unfair infringe- 
ment upon their property rights, both on the part of individuals and 
groups — the latter especially. Sad to say, divergent doctrines are apt 
to be preached and advocated from our pulpits from time to time. 
Sometimes these culminate in sharp differences and separations. Al- 
most invariably these divergent groups feel that they are not diver- 
gent or that they have not received a square deal, or both, and insist 
on holding the properties in their possession. Without proper incor- 
poration the faithful groups and sections would in most cases lose all 
their possessions. Through incorporation legal claims and vindication 
becomes possible. 

Too bad that these serious disputes occur. But let us appreciate 
the fact that our Churches have life enough left for these disputes 
when they are necessary. 


3. The condition attached to this article. 

The condition which concludes Article 28 reads as follows: It should 
be well understood, however, that for the sake of peace and material 
possession they may never suffer the royal government of Christ over 
His Church to be in the least infringed upon. 

Our Synod of 1914 was thoroughly convinced that State domination 
over the Church may never be tolerated. It prized very highly the 
liberties which is the just right of each Church. State domination 
ever stands condemned inasmuch as Christ is the Church’s absolute 
monarch. Never may the Church give unto Caesar that which is 
God’s. Never may she detract from the authority and honor which 
is Christ’s and give it to the State. Church history is replete with 
blunders and sins belonging to this category, blunders and sins com- 
mitted to the dishonor of Christ and to the damage of the Churches 
concerned. Every time! 

And so Synod of 1914 ruled, that, rather than detract in the least 
from Christ’s authority over us, our Churches should remain unin- 
corporated. Rather suffer loss of property and incur injustice than 
bring the Churches in bondage to the State. Whenever incorporation 
should entail this evil, so the article rules. Churches must refrain 
from incorporating. 

Too bad that our civil governments incorporate our Churches as if 
they are ordinary societies or corporations. This is not as it should 
be. The Churches of Jesus Christ are not man-made corporations in 
the sense that secular organizations are. This evil should be rectified 
as soon as possible. But inasmuch as this feature has never entailed 
practices which we must condemn, incorporation is permissible even so. 


CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL ASSEMBLIES 


ARTICLE XXIX. 

Four kinds of ecclesiastical assemblies shall be maintained: 
the Consistory , the Classis (the particular Synod), and the Gen- 
eral Synod. 


FOUR KINDS OF ASSEMBLIES 

Article 29 introduces us to a new division of our Church Order. 
Thus far we have considered matters pertaining to the officers in 
our Churches. Art. 29-52 concern the ecclesiastical assemblies. Art. 
29-36 embody a number of general rules concerning our assemblies. 
Art. 37-40 deal particularly with matters consistorial. Art. 41-45 
regulate classical matters. Art, 46-49 concern Particular Synods. And 
Art. 50-52 stipulate what is to be observed regarding our General 
Synods. 

1. The historical origin of the ecclesiastical assemblies. 

Consistory meetings, as stands to reason, were held from the very 
beginning of the Reformation movement. As soon as groups of be- 
lievers had organized themselves, or were organized, into Reformed 
Churches, the ruling office-bearers met more or less regularly. But 
Major Assemblies were not held until several years later. Persecution, 
war, and lack of ecclesiastical understanding and development in 
many cases, account for this fact. The first few decades of the Re- 
formation era were naturally formative to a high degree. 

In France, where the Calvinistic Reformation had acquired a 
strong foothold, there were over 2,000 Reformed congregations by 
the year 1561. Three years prior, in 1558, there had been a gathering 
of a number of Reformed Ministers at the Church of Poitiers, where 
also a representative of the Church of Paris was in attendance. Here 
the advisability and need of Synodical gatherings was discussed. The 
Church of Paris was asked to call all the Reformed Churches of 
France in Synodical gathering. This Synod was held in Paris the 
following year, in 1559. 

At this first Synod of Reformed Churches of France a Church Order 
was adopted to which the integrity of the several congregations is 
basic, but which also provides for provincial and national Synods, at 
which the common interests of the Churches might be discussed and 
acted upon. Classical meetings were not introduced in France until 
1572. 

The Reformed Churches of the southern Netherlands (now largely 
Belgium), met repeatedly since 1563, regulating their affairs largely 
according to the Orders in force in France and Geneva under Calvin. 

The refugee Churches in England and Germany at this time also 
held their meetings. 

The Wezelian Convention, 1568, though not a Synod inasmuch as 
the various delegates were not authorized to act for the various 
Churches, was the most representative gathering of Holland Churches 


131 


132 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


held up to that year. Tentative regulations for definite federation 
were adopted. 

The first Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Low Countries 
was held in 1571, at Emden, Germany. Conditions in the Netherlands 
were as yet too hostile and irregular for a Synodical gathering. The 
Emden Church Order provided for Consistories, Classes, Provincial 
Synods, and National Synods. At this time, according to Prof. H. 
Bouwman, the Churches of our forefathers yielded some of their in- 
dividual rights regarding government and discipline for the sake of 
the general welfare of the Churches.* All delegates to this first 
Synod had been summoned and delegated with authority to act in this 
direction. At the same time rules were agreed upon which protected 
the rights of the individual members of the Churches, and which 
would counteract all wilfulness and arbitrariness. The Churches also 
agreed to admit candidates to the ministry only after consultation 
with the other neighboring Churches, and that Ministers would hence- 
forth not be called or disciplined without such consultation. 

A common Confession and a Church Order were adopted. In sub- 
stance, as to its fundamental principles, we are still governed by this 
first Church Order, although it was revised according to need several 
times. 

2. The significance of names given to these assemblies. 

The word Consistory is derived from the Latin “consistorium,” 
meaning, place of meeting. It indicates the body of men chosen to 
govern the affairs of a local Church. The Dutch speak of “Kerkeraad,” 
i.e., Church Council. The Presbyterians refer to the body of their 
pastors and ruling Elders as the Session. 

The word Classis (plural: Classes) is also Latin and indicates a 
division or class of people or of other objects. 

And the word Synod is derived from the Greek “sunodos,” indicat- 
ing, “a coming together, assembly, meeting.” The term “Particular 
Synod” indicates the gathering of a number of Classes. The Dutch 
original of our Article 29 speaks of “Provinciate Synoden,” inasmuch 
as the borders of the various provinces of the Netherlands were made 
to serve as borders for the territory of Particular Synods also. 

And finally, the term General Synod is used to indicate the gather- 
ing of all the federated Churches. The expression is used synonymous 
in the Netherlands with National Synod. 

Art. 46-49, which pertain to Particular Synods, have no present and 
immediate value for us, inasmuch as our Churches do not hold Par- 
ticular Synods. These articles were left in the Church Order for 
completeness sake. They, as will have been noted, are printed between 
parentheses. 

3. The character of ecclesiastical assemblies. 

Regarding the nature of ecclesiastical assemblies, note first of all 
that according to Reformed church polity, only such Churches as are 
confessionally like-minded can have part in these gatherings. For 
Churches to be federally united, these must have a common concep- 
tion of Holy Writ, and thus a common working platform. Co-opera- 
tion and promotion of each other’s welfare would be impossible with- 
out confessional unity. Ecclesiastical federation without confessional 
unity would make for shallowness and fruitlessness, or else for trou- 
ble and constant conflict. 


♦Bouwman: Gor. Xerkrecht, 1934, II, pp. 2, 3. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


133 


Secondly, Churches ecclesiastically federated are and remain com- 
plete in themselves. The various local Churches do not dissolve them- 
selves into a large classical Church, or into a national, synodical 
Church. The local congregation is a complete manifestation of the 
body of Christ, a unit in itself, and is not to be looked upon as a 
sub-division of a large super-Church ruling with superior power. 

Furthermore, the nature of ecclesiastical federation (“kerkverband” 
is the Dutch term) is nevertheless such that the major assemblies 
exercise a binding authority regarding all matters w T hich concern the 
Churches in general and which have not been specifically left to the 
individual Churches or congregations. At major assemblies the indi- 
vidual Churches act in unison by common consent. Decisions must 
therefore be respected unless proven contrary to the Bible or the 
Church Order previously agreed upon. 

Reformed Church polity therefore upholds the integrity of the local 
Church, but at the same time does full justice to all the Churches 
federally united and the spiritual unity underlying the federation. 
Also because of this spiritual unity in Christ and confessional unity 
doctrinally, by God’s providence, federation is not left merely to the 
judgment of each Church. There is a very definite spiritual obligation 
flowering forth from a real spiritual union and agreement which 
makes ecclesiastical federation and its implications mandatory upon 
the Churches. 

4. The character and purpose of congregational meetings. 

Our Churches know of four types of governing assemblies and only 
four; those mentioned in the present article. The congregational 
meeting is not amongst them. In the Congregational system (Congre- 
gational Churches, Baptist Churches, etc.) the congregational meeting 
is really the one and only authoritative Church assembly. Office- 
bearers are to execute the decision of the congregational meeting. 
In the Reformed system, however, it is held that Christ governs His 
Church through the offices instituted for that purpose. Is there no 
room, then, in the Reformed system for congregational meeting? In- 
deed there is. Repeatedly, for instance, the Church Order prescribes 
that matters must be submitted to the congregation for approbation. 
(Cf. Articles 4, 5, 22, etc.) Now, this may be done by announcing de- 
cisions which the Consistory is minded to take, so that the members 
can express themselves at a given consistory meeting, in case they 
desire to do so. Or the Consistory may call together all members 
in good and regular standing and submit the matter at hand to the 
Church as a body, for consideration and advice. 

But these congregational meetings are really Consistory meetings 
to which the Consistory has previously invited all the members. We 
might call them open consistory meetings. Decisions really become 
binding only after the matter has been acted upon by the actual ruling 
body of the congregation. 

Of course, no Consistory has the right to treat the members of its 
Church as minors. Every believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit and 
lives in a state of majority and not of minority. And Consistories 
should keep in much closer touch with the body of believers than is 
done as a rule. And no Consistory may lightly set aside an expression 
of opinion on a definite matter by the majority of its congregation. 

But neither may the Consistory transfer its God-imposed authority 
to non-office-bearers and refuse to exercise its responsibility. The 
control of congregational gatherings should therefore remain with the 
Consistory and it should be clearly understood that the gathering is 


134 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


essentially advisory in character. From the foregoing it also follows 
that the minutes of these meetings are Consistory minutes and should 
be approved by it. 

5. The question of universal Synods of Reformed Churches. 

What should be our attitude toward international Synods of Re- 
formed Churches? The Reformed Church of the Netherlands of the 
sixteenth century certainly favored ecumenical or universal Synods. 
But their plan and hopes concerning such Synods never materialized. 
The government frowned upon these plans fearing interference by 
foreign powers in matters national. The difference in languages was 
also a formidable barrier. And the heavy expenditures involved fur- 
thermore kept the cherished ideals from being realized. The great 
Synod of Dort was the nearest approach to a universal Reformed 
Synod which history records. In recent years the subject has been 
revived. Some of the old obstacles still stand, but modern travel may 
enable us to realize this long-cherished hope at some future time. 
However, numerous other questions, such as to scope and measure 
of authority, would seem to make it advisable to steer in the direc- 
tion of a Convention. This was proposed by the South African 
Churches to the Reformed Churches of Holland and to our Churches. 
But present-day conditions seem to prohibit even the realization of 
this hope. Nevertheless, an international convention of Reformed 
Churches certainly would seem to be within the realm of possibilities, 
and we should very definitely move in this direction. We need each 
other. In this day of internationalism, when many organizations meet 
internationally to promote their aims, the Church of God should not 
come trailing on behind. If the Communists, and other godless organi- 
zations can meet internationally, why cannot we? 


ARTICLE XXX. 

In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be trans- 
acted and that in an ecclesiastical manner. In major assemblies 
only such matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished 
in minor assemblies , or such as pertain to the Churches of the 
major assembly in common. 

THE AUTHORITY OF ECCLESIASTICAL ASSEMBLIES 

Beyond dispute, this 30th article of our Church Order is very sig- 
nificant. The article concerns, in the main, three matters, viz.; (1) 
That the authority of ecclesiastical assemblies is limited to ecclesias- 
tical matters; (2) The manner in which ecclesiastical gatherings must 
transact their affairs; (3) The limited authority of major assemblies. 
For practical reasons, in the interest of clarity we have, however, 
divided the consideration of Art. 30 into seven points. 

1. The authority of ecclesiastical assemblies limited to ecclesiastical 
matters. 

The assemblies to which this article has reference are those enum- 
erated in Article 29, namely: Consistory, Classis, Particular Synod, 
and General Synod. At all these ecclesiastical meetings, none but ec- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


135 


clesiastical matters shall be transacted. Why this provision? In the 
first place because the domain over which the instituted Church of 
Christ has authority is not general, but limited. It is limited to that 
which concerns the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of 
the Sacraments, the calling and ordination to office, the exercise of 
discipline, the promotion of a consecrated scriptural Church com- 
munion, and kindred matters. The former of these, as will be evident, 
require the latter. 

The Reformation Churches of Holland soon realized that although 
the Church of Christ — conceived of as the body of true believers, 
living in various lands and belonging to various Church organizations 
— is the salt of the earth, and has a very definite task in all domains 
of life, that the organized or instituted Church as such has authority 
only in matters ecclesiastical. Individual believers and groups of be- 
lievers have rights and obligations extending over all domains of life, 
but the organized Church, though it stands related to all of life, can- 
not act authoritatively beyond its own domain. Nowhere do we find 
that Holy Writ attributes extra-ecclesiastical authority to the insti- 
tuted Church. The prophets and Apostles do have a message again 
and again pertaining to social, political, or economic life. But at no 
time do we find the prophets or Apostles and Elders actually trans- 
acting affairs belongin'^ to these domains. 

In this respect also our fathers took a position quite different from 
the Roman Catholic Church which seeks to control all domains of 
life, and regards the bishop of Rome (the Pope) as supreme ruler of 
the Church not only, but also over all temporal affairs. The Refor- 
mation was definitely a “back-to-the-Bible” movement also in this 
respect. Not that the Biblical limitations of ecclesiastical authority 
stood out in bold relief before all the Reformers. At first even many 
of the Calvinistic Churches did seek a voice in matters non-ecclesias- 
tical. The pressure of circumstances (persecution) urged them on, 
even as the example of Romanism misled and tempted them. And so 
at first political and military matters would be discussed at some ec- 
clesiastical gatherings, particularly in France. But it was definitely 
against the genius of the Reformed conception of the instituted 
Church. 

In the very first redaction of our Church Order we consequently 
already find the provision before us, i.e., “In ecclesiastical assemblies 
none but ecclesiastical matters shall be transacted.” Even when Wil- 
liam the Silent, who so nobly fought the cause of Protestant Holland 
against oppressive, domineering Roman Spain, solicited the direct 
support of the Reformed Churches of Holland convened in their first 
Synod (Emden, 1571), through Mamix van St. Aldegonde, these 
Churches refrained from taking such action. 

There were also secondary considerations, we may believe, which 
moved our fathers to include this provision in their Church Order. 
If the Churches should engage in various matters, lying outside of 
the sphere of their responsibility, they would in so far interfere with 
the rights and responsibilities of others. This would be contrary to 
justice and God’s ordinance. 

Moreover, if the Churches should busy themselves with secular 
matters, they would in all likelihood neglect their real task. The right 
management of the Churches and the promotion of things spiritual 
would suffer if the Churches should spend their time and efforts on 
non-ecclesiastical territory, even as a farmer cannot do justice to his 
farm, if he is constantly employed in town. 

Furthermore, the transaction of non-ecclesiastical affairs would 


136 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


most naturally lead to undesirable entanglements. It would lead the 
Churches concerned into conflict and trouble repeatedly. 

2. Matters not to be considered and acted upon at ecclesiastical 
assemblies. 

Which matters should not be considered and acted upon at ecclesi- 
astical assemblies? Matters which do not concern the Churches in 
the administration of the Word and the Sacraments, or in their exer- 
cise of discipline, or in their regulation of divine worship, and the 
promotion of sound doctrine and vital spiritual living and ecclesias- 
tical activity. Thus, e.g., political issues and the question regarding 
the government of State and nation are non-ecclesiastical and cannot 
be acted upon in our assemblies. Furthermore, matters social and 
economic are also non-ecclesiastical. Discussion and action pertaining 
to these spheres cannot take place at our Consistory meetings. 
Classes, or Synods. 

Let it be clear, however, that this restriction of our Church Order 
does not imply that Christianity has no interest and message for the 
various spheres of life, political, social, etc. It most certainly has. 
The sovereignty of God, denied and contested by sin, must be recog- 
nized in every domain of life. Christ is not only King of the Church, 
but also King of kings and Lord of lords, to whom all power is given 
in heaven and on earth. As His loyal subjects we Christians must 
proclaim and insist on His royal rights. 

Neither does it mean that the instituted Church as such has no 
message for and interest in things governmental, social, economic, 
educational, etc. It assuredly has. Through the preaching of the 
Word, f.i., the instituted Churches must proclaim the will of God for 
all of life, and condemn sin and evil in all spheres of life. But though 
the Churches have a directive and enlightening task, they have no 
legislative and executive task regarding the secular affairs and de- 
partments of life. Consequently questions pertaining to a certain war, 
our political parties, unemployment, taxation, old age pension, etc., 
are not to be discussed at our assemblies, unless it be indirectly, in 
as far as many matters political, economic, social, and educational 
stand very closely related to things ecclesiastical. But even so the 
Churches should go no further than is required for the correct gov- 
ernment and the best interests of the Churches. So, f.i., a Consistory 
may not take action for or against a week-day half-holiday grocery 
store closing movement, or the question of retail sales taxes. 

Today there is a strong tendency in many Churches all around us 
to busy themselves at their assemblies with social and economic prob- 
lems. This our Church Order condemns. And rightly so. The Church 
which engages itself with all kinds of questions (questions urgent 
and very vital in themselves, even crying for consideration and solu- 
tion on the part of Christian leaders and Christian organizations), 
will do so at the expense of its true spiritual welfare and its real 
calling. The best service which the instituted Churches of Christ can 
render our country, also economically and socially, is that they mind 
their own specific business, and thus constitute themselves a saving 
salt in this world of sin, and a beacon light of safety for the storm- 
tossed sailors of life’s dark and stormy waters. 

3. Are Consistories ever obligated to settle disputes concerning 
things material? 

No. Sometimes brethren entertain claims against each other. Mr. 
A may contend that Mr. B owes him a certain amount of money 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


137 


which he refuses to pay. May A bring: this matter to the Consistory 
and ask the Consistory to take matters in hand? No, he may not. 
However, if A is convinced that B is defrauding him, that would 
involve a sin against the eighth commandment. Concerning this al- 
leged sin he may and must admonish Mr. B. according to the rule of 
Matt. 18. If unsuccessful he may have to bring the matter to the at- 
tention of the Consistory in that form. But the Consistory may never 
permit itself to be used as a collecting agency. 

Again, Mr. C may claim that Mr. D has moved a certain line fence 
to the latter’s advantage. D may deny the charge. C may take the 
matter to the Consistory. Should the Consistory, if asked to do so, 
endeavor to determine who is right? No. 

b For all such cases our Lord’s “Man, who made me a judge or a 
divider over you?” (Luke 12:14) is altogether applicable. Let the 
parties concerned in all such cases appoint an impartial committee 
of arbitration of Christian brethren, and let these settle the matter, 
the parties at variance first promising to abide by the findings of the 
committee. Or else, if this way is not wanted (which attitude would 
certainly not be to the credit of the parties involved), let the divinely- 
appointed courts decide. However, the admonition of I Cor. 6 should 
weigh heavy on us of this day also, inasmuch as the courts of our 
day are largely presided over by unbelievers and are under the con- 
trol of unbelievers. 


4. Significance of the phrase: “and that in an ecclesiastical manner”. 

Only ecclesiastical matters are to be considered at our ecclesiastical 
assemblies. And the manner of their consideration must also be ec- 
clesiastical. What does this mean? The Church Order here contrasts 
the Church assemblies particularly with our State and federal as- 
semblies. Congress and Senate, as well as any other civil government 
body, decides and legislates according to parliamentary rules. Often 
the majority is fully satisfied when a bill is passed, though large 
numbers are bitterly opposed and disappointed. But in our ecclesiasti- 
cal assemblies we should by all means seek to convince and persuade 
each other from the Word of God. We should not seek to force our 
opinions and convictions onto others. Our assemblies should far rather 
guide and direct. By mutual consultation and consideration of God’s 
Word we should endeavor to come to a mutual conclusion. 

Furthermore, all business should be transacted according to the 
adopted Church Order. Complicated parliamentary rules are out of 
place in ecclesiastical assemblies. Our Church gatherings are not 
courts of law, nor bodies for civil legislation, nor commercial gather- 
ings. To be sure, all things should be done “decently and in good 
order,” but neither Roberts’ Rules of Order nor complicated and 
technical synodically approved sets of detailed rules of procedure 
should be permitted to hinder and hurt our ecclesiastical assemblies 
in their work. Rules are necessary, but too many rules are a hind- 
rance. A hindrance to unhampered deliberation and mutual considera- 
tion. To deliberate and decide upon ecclesiastical matters in an un- 
ecclesiastical way brings spiritual damage. Freedom should be main- 
tained and fostered. All members at our Church gatherings should 
feel free to express themselves without too much fear of transgressing 
some parliamentary rule and of being called to order by the president. 
We should appreciate the fact that our Church Order is a non-techni- 
cal, simple document. Let us value and maintain these features. 


138 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


5. What should be noted regarding the terms “major assemblies” and 
“minor assemblies”? 

This latter provision of Article 30 is also very important. It is 
typically Reformed. It is fundamental for Reformed Church govern- 
ment. 

Reformed church polity does not know a system of lower and higher 
courts in the usual sense of the word. It does not, as is done par- 
ticularly by the Roman Catholic Church and to a certain extent by 
some Protestant bodies, attribute a small and limited measure of au- 
thority to the governing body of the local Congregation, a somewhat 
greater and more extensive measure of authority to groups of neigh- 
boring Churches convening together, and a still greater and still 
more extensive, measure of authority to assemblies next in order, and 
finally the greatest and most extensive measure of authority to' the 
gathering representing all the Churches. If this were the case the 
Church , Order might speak of lower and higher assemblies. For in 
that case Consistories would have only a limited and smaller degree 
of authority; and Synod a very wide and high degree of authority, 
while our Classes would exercise an intermediate measure of author- 
ity. But Reformed Church polity does not hold that Consistories have 
a lower and more limited degree of authority, and Classes and 
Synods a higher and more extensive degree. Consequently our Church 
Order speaks of major and minor assemblies, and not of higher and 
lower assemblies. 

The Latin word minor, signifies “less,” and the Latin word major 
“more.” If our fathers had desired to indicate that our Classes and 
Synods are invested with higher authority than the Consistories, 
higher in the sense of having inherent powers not vested in the ruling 
bodies of the local Churches, then they would have used the compara- 
tive of some other Latin word, f.i., altus<, signifying “high.” But they 
used major, inasmuch as the authority of our major assemblies 
(Classes and Synods) is the same in essence as the authority vested 
in the local Church. 

In fact. Reformed Church polity knows of only one type and degree 
of authority: that vested in the local congregation or its ruling body, 
the Consistory. The authority exercised by the major assemblies is 
no higher and greater essentially, but merely the sum-total of the 
authority exercised by the individual Consistories meeting as Classis 
or Synod. The authority of our major assemblies may therefore be 
looked upon as an accumulation or combination of consistorial author- 
ity. 

Furthermore, the authority of our Consistories is not less extensive 
than that of our Classes and Synods, but more extensive than that 
of Classes and Synods. That is to say, the domain over which our 
Consistories have authority is much more extensive than that of 
Classes and Synods. 

Many denominations, Roman Catholicism especially, regard their 
denomination as being a large super-Church, and the local Churches 
as mere subdivisions of the one large Church. Consequently, the high- 
est authority they find inherently in the high courts or judicial bodies 
of their Church. And to these superior institutions they also attribute 
the widest scope of authority. The Reformed system, however, main- 
tains that each local congregation is a complete Church, a complete 
manifestation of the body of Christ. In that sense and in so far each 
Church or congregation is independent in essence (zelfstandig). Local 
Churches can even exist without denominational federation, but a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


139 


denomination cannot exist without local Churches. The real unit is 
therefore the individual Church. And the local Churches do not exist 
for the sake of the denomination, but denominations exist for the 
sake of the local and individual Churches. 

The terms “major” and “minor”, in Art. 30, do not, therefore, 
refer to a system of lower and higher ecclesiastical courts, exercising 
various inherent degrees of authority, but they designate, in the first 
place, that at major assemblies a number of Churches are gathered 
together, and that consequently, in the second place, at major as- 
semblies a larger measure of authority is present than at minor as- 
semblies, even as ten men have more strength than one alone. 

It is interesting to note that the Synod of Dordrecht (1578) used 
the phrase, “grooter en minderen versamelinghen,” i.e., larger and 
smaller assemblies. In this sense our Dutch Church Order still speaks 
of, “maerdere en mindere vergaderingen.” 

Bearing the foregoing in mind it is not difficult to see why Article 
30 limits the scope of authority of major assemblies, and safeguards 
the rights of all the Churches. 

How does this article further maintain the integrity of our con- 
gregations? Article 30 specifies very clearly that only such matters 
shall be considered and acted upon at major assemblies as could not 
be finished by the minor assemblies. 

No Classis or Synod may therefore assume to do that which right- 
fully belongs to the domain of the local Church, and which can be 
acted upon by its Consistory. No major assembly may therefore 
needlessly interfere with the management of congregational affairs. 
There are a good many matters and instances concerning which a 
Consistory would have the right to say, if need should require, to 
major assemblies: Hands off! 

The authority of major assemblies is very clearly limited in this 
article, thus maintaining the integrity and autonomy of each Church. 

At the same time the article wards off the danger of an oligarchical 
rule by a few men, vested with superior authority. 

Furthermore, the provision also rules out the danger of flooding 
the tables of major assemblies with overmuch work, which makes for 
hasty superficiality and blunderous decisions. No individual or as- 
sembly may expect a major assembly to act regarding matters which 
could be finished at minor assemblies. 

6. Matters that “could not be finished in minor assemblies.” 

Sometimes matters, which as to their essence belong to the domain 
of the minor assemblies cannot well be finished by them. Now the 
Church Order provides that such cases shall be acted upon by the 
major assemblies. For example, a matter may be so complicated and 
difficult that a Consistory feels itself incompetent to deal with the 
matter. It may then ask the Classis with its greater numbers and 
superior wisdom and experience, to extend its helping hand. Or again 
the absence Jfrom home or the long continued illness of some Consis- 
tory members may so weaken a small Consistory that it is for the 
time being unable to finish a matter in itself not so overly difficult. 

Furthermore, when a member or a body desires to make an appeal 
concerning any action of a minor assembly, such an appeal as a mat- 
ter of course goes to the major assembly to which the appeal is right- 
fully made. No minor assembly can in such cases sit in judgment 
over its own actions, although reconsideration of previous decisions 
is, of course, always permissible. If an appeal is made to Classis 
or Synod, the appellant must always notify the minor assembly con- 


140 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


cemed and thus give opportunity to the minor assembly to present 
the case from its point of view at the major assembly. 

7. Which matters pertain to “the Churches in common”? 

In general, as Bouwman states,* this phrase concerns matters mu- 
tually agreed upon by the Churches, and which concern continued de- 
nominational fellowship and the maintenance of principles set forth 
in the Bible, and (consequently) in the Confessional Standards and 
Church Order. 

The Church Order specifies in Article 2 what is to be observed by 
all the Churches regarding the offices in Christ’s Church; in Article 3, 
that none shall assume to preach in the Churches without a lawful 
call; how one may be called, in Articles 4 and 5; support and emerita- 
tion of Ministers is regulated in Articles 11 and 13; matters to be 
observed regarding Elders and Deacons are covered by Articles 22 
to 27; when Deacons may be and when they must be added to the 
Consistory, Article 37; missionary work, Article 51; subscription to 
the Forms of Unity by all office-bearers, Article 53 and 54; matters 
pertaining to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Articles 56 to 64; songs 
to be sung in the Churches, Article 69; solemnization of marriages, 
Article 70; disciplinary matters, Articles 70 to 81; certification of 
membership, Article 82. (This enumeration is not exhaustive.) All 
matters thus regulated in the Church Order pertain to the Churches 
in general, and the major assemblies may take action regarding them 
directly as far as their general aspect is concerned. But no Classis 
or Synod may take to hand a matter which is clearly the affair of a 
certain Consistory, though it should concern a matter regulated for 
all the Churches^ in the Church Order. 

And thus matters which are of a general interest for all the 
Churches of a Classis or Synod may be taken directly before these 
bodies, and these bodies may also take action upon such matters upon 
their own initiative. So, f.i., our Synod may decide to initiate a con- 
sideration concerning the proper mode of observing the Lord’s Supper, 
whenever it so desires, for this is a matter which concerns all the 
Churches, and not just one or a few. For this same reason individual 
members even have the right of requesting classical or synodical 
action, through petitions addressed directly to said assemblies, when 
it concerns matters which pertain to the Churches in common. 


ARTICLE XXXI. 

If any one complains that he has been wronged by the deci- 
sion of a minor assembly , he shall have the right to appeal to 
a major ecclesiastical assembly , and whatever may be agreed 
upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and bind- 
ing , unless it be proved to conflict [with the Word of God or 
with the Articles of the Church Order , as long as they are not 
changed by a General Synod. 

RIGHT OF APPEAL AND VALIDITY OF ECCLESIASTICAL 
DECISIONS 

Article 31 concerns itself with two principles of Reformed Church 
government, namely the right of appeal, and the validity of ecclesias- 

•Bouwman: Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, 1934, II, 37. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


141 


tical decisions. Both of these principles are very important and merit 
full consideration. 

1. Why does the Church Order provide for right of appeal? 

In the first place because our assemblies (Consistories, Classes, and 
Synods) are not infallible. We have the promise of the Christ that 
the Holy Spirit will guide us into all the truth (John 16:13). But no- 
where does the Bible say that the Spirit will guide us inerrantly. As 
individual Christians, and as office-bearers at ecclesiastical assemblies, 
we can and do err. The Word of God is inerrant. But the Church is 
not. Consequently, if any one feels convinced that a minor assembly 
has made a mistake through an error of judgment or from neglect 
of duty, such a one should have the right of appeal to the assembly 
next in order. A major assembly being composed of a larger number 
of brethren, and often further removed from the personal elements 
which so easily enter its cases on home territory, may sustain an 
aggrieved brother, or it may serve to convince the party concerned 
regarding the correctness of the minor assemblies’ stand. 

Right of appeal also follows from the fact that all believers par- 
take of Christ’s threefold office. Each believer as prophet, priest, and 
king under Christ has a right to be heard and to receive full con- 
sideration. Moreover, denial of the right of appeal would often work 
havoc practically. Many a man, who now appeals, would otherwise 
nurse his griefs and create unrest and division perhaps. 

2. To which cases does this right of appeal apply? 

To cases in which one “complains that he has been wronged by 
the decision of a minor assembly.” Not every adverse decision can 
therefore constitute a just cause for appeal. Only then may one ap- 
peal to a major assembly, when he is convinced that he has been 
wronged; that is, when according to his conception an injustice has 
been committed. The very word appeal would also signify this. Only 
he who is in. pressing circumstances makes an appeal for help. So 
only he who feels that he has been wronged is justified to make an 
appeal. Jansen (Korte Verklaring, etc.) uses a very apt illustration. 
Says he in effect: suppose a Consistory decides that the morning 
service is to begin at 10 instead of at 9 o’clock. One of the members 
may not like this change, but that in itself does not give him just 
reasons for an appeal to Classis. But if the new hour makes worship 
for him, and perhaps others, impossible, whereas all can worship at 
the old hour,' then he and these others are being wronged, and this 
injustice would constitute a just basis for complaint and appeal. 

No one should conclude from the foregoing that it is our opinion 
that Article 31 limits appeals to cases of personal injury. He who 
feels that a minor assembly has come to an incorrect and dangerous 
conclusion, contrary to the Bible, the confessional writings, the Church 
Order, or the welfare of the Churches, may and should indeed appeal 
to Classis or Synod. 

3. To which body must the appeal be made? 

To major assemblies. Consistorial decisions may be appealed to 
Classis. Classical decisions may be appealed to Synod. In exception- 
al cases one may appeal from one assembly to the next. That is from 
one classical gathering to the next classical gathering, or from one 
synodical gathering to the following synodical gathering. But, as a 
rule, this is both needless and out of place. 

The Reformed system of church government knows of no appeal to 


142 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the congregation. The independent systems ( Congregationalists, 
Baptists, etc.) do. In these systems decisions of the ruling body of 
the local Church may be challenged and brought before the congre- 
gation. However, we find no warrant for this in Scripture. Christ 
vested the power of government over His Church in the office-bearers. 
When the question of circumcision disturbed the apostolic Church, 
the matter was not placed before the congregation as such, but be- 
fore a meeting of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15). 

4. Proper time limits and methods for appeals. 

The article says nothing as to proper time limits to be observed 
in cases of appeal. Neither have we any classical or synodical deci- 
sion seeking to control this matter. There has been a time when 
some Reformed Churches stipulated that appeals to be valid had to 
be registered inside of three weeks. Others allowed a six weeks’ limit. 
But such limitations proved to be rather arbitrary and harmful. 
Some matters are exceedingly complicated, and a time limit of a few 
days or weeks for the registration of appeals may cause damage. 
Moreover, there was always the danger that proper appeals would be 
ruled out of order for the simple reason that they came a day or 
more late. 

However, appeals should be made as soon as possible and not be- 
yond a reasonable length of time after the decision by which the ap- 
pellant claims to have been wronged has been taken. The Churches 
of Holland (Gereformeerde Kerken) adopted the following rule in 
1893: “ Appeals concerning any decision of an ecclesiastical assembly 
must be made before the following major assembly to which the ap- 
peal is directed meets, the clerk of the assembly by whose decision 
the appellant feels aggrieved, having been notified. The parties con- 
cerned shall be notified regarding every decision made.” This is no 
doubt a good general rule. But even so there must remain room for 
exceptions. One might, f.i., be hindered by sickness from complying 
with this rule. 

Multiplication of rules and stipulations in ecclesiastical matters 
often works for more harm than good. We should be very careful 
on this score. Let each assembly judge with good-will and Christian 
forbearance as to the propriety of each appeal directed to it. This 
is the unwritten rule which we have followed thus far and it seems 
to have worked well. 

What should we answer as to the proper method of appeal? Con- 
cerning this Jansen recommends that an appeal should include the 
following points: (1) Presentation of the matter at issue in the ap- 
pellant’s own words. (2) Quotation of the official decision concerning 
which the appeal is being made. (3) Enumeration of the reasons be- 
cause of which the appellant feels himself aggrieved and upon which 
his appeal rests. (4) Petition that the major assembly declare for 
reasons adduced, that the minor assembly’s decision was erroneous 
and unfounded. 

It should also be noted here that the Reformed Churches of former 
years have always permitted an appellant to explain and defend his 
position by means of another, called “een mond,” i.e., a mouth. Such 
an advocate, however, had to be a member of one of the Reformed 
Churches in good and regular standing, and he was of course expected 
to respect the rule of the assembly and to deport himself in a worthy 
manner. From recent Presbyterian trials it will have been noted that 
this same custom is honored by these Churches. This usage and 
privilege is altogether defensible and praise-worthy. One may have a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


143 


just ground of complaint and yet not have the ability to make a de- 
sirable presentation. It is to the Churches' own welfare that the ap- 
pellant receive every legitimate opportunity to defend his position or 
to clarify the matter at hand. 

5. If a member appeals to a major assembly, should the minor as- 
sembly involved suspend action regarding the matter concerned 
until the appeal has been acted upon? 

The question is often asked: Should decisions of minor assemblies 
await execution pending an appeal ? We would answer in the affirma- 
tive. If' at all possible no assembly must begin to execute a decision 
the correctness of which is to be judged by a major assembly. To il- 
lustrate, supposing some one objects to the installation of a certain 
brother as Elder, and that his objection is overruled, and that he ap- 
peals to Classis; then if the Consistory would proceed with the instal- 
lation, mid after a few weeks Classis should sustain the appellant, 
such a Consistory would find itself in a very difficult position. 

If and when possible, action on appeals should be awaited. Some- 
times, however, this is not possible, or not advisable. Thus in the il- 
lustration at hand, if the appellant were not sustained by Classis he 
might appeal to Synod. This would mean a long extended delay as to 
the brother's installation (if synodical decision were awaited), which 
would be unfair to both the Church concerned and the Elder-elect con- 
cerned. The rule should be one appeal. And during that appeal, in 
all possible cases, action on the appeal should be awaited. If an 
appellant feels burdened to such an extent that he cannot submit after 
the first appeal, then let him proceed. But as a rule he should not 
ask or expect the minor assembly to suspend action. 

6. Can a major assembly invalidate a decision of a minor assembly? 

No. In the Church of Rome this would most assuredly be the case. 

Also with Churches which regard the denomination to be the real 
Church or Church unit, and the local congregations and the minor 
assemblies of the Churches as divisions of the one real Church. But 
according to the Reformed conception and set-up, Biblically formed and 
historically conditioned, the local congregation is the unit, a complete 
Church of Christ. Major assemblies most certainly can deliberate and 
decide. But if their decisions are contrary to decisions taken by minor 
assemblies, these minor assemblies must conform themselves to the 
conclusions of the major assemblies. Either by actual reconsideration 
of the question, or by silent acquiescense. As a rule the latter method 
is followed. Practically it does not make much difference whether one 
looks upon an adverse decision of a major assembly as an invalida- 
tion or nullification of the minor assembly’s decision, or as being es- 
sentially an advice, and no decision to nullify the minor assembly’s 
conclusion. The minor assembly as a rule follows the advise of the 
major assembly. And it must do so, inasmuch as all the Churches 
have agreed to submit themselves to the opinion of the majority and 
to abide by decisions mutually taken. Only when the Word of God 
forbids may any Church or group of Churches refrain from abiding by 
the decision of major assemblies. But for all this, maior assemblies 
do not dictate, and they do not have the inherent right to invalidate 
decisions of minor assemblies. The local Church or groups of Churches 
do not receive superior orders which they must obey without further 
question, but they receive conclusions reached by common consent, and 
as such they will respect these conclusions. And as such they will ac- 
cept them as their own, either formally, or by silent acquiescence. 


144 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


7. All decisions made by majority vote. 

Article 31 further stipulates that . . whatever may be agreed upon 
by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding’.” What- 
ever, therefore, the majority of those entitled to vote decide, becomes 
binding for all. And bv a majority vote we simply mean more than 
one half of the total number of votes cast. Sometimes the majority 
may be large; sometimes very small, one vote being sufficient to con- 
stitute a majority. 

Sometimes certain organizations decide by plurality vote. The larg- 
est number of votes, though less than one half of the actual votes 
decides. This method, however, is out of place at our ecclesiastical 
meetings. It might foster the evil of permitting minorities to rule 
over majorities, which is least of all desirable in church affairs. (How- 
ever, when the matter at hand concerns no principle or policy, but the 
appointment to minor functions, the assembly may decide that he who 
receives the largest number of votes shall be considered elected, pro- 
vided all agree to this method. This method of procedure should 
always be exceptional.) 

No ecclesiastical gathering should be satisfied when decisions are 
made by bare or small majorities, for this is never ideal. At our Con- 
sistory meetings as well as at our major assemblies we should seek to 
convince each other from the Word of God, and we should seek to 
persuade each other with arguments in harmony with our confessional 
writings and our Church Order. Decisions should be arrived at with 
as much unanimity as possible. That will make for unity of purpose 
and endeavor. That was also the clear conception of things as held 
by our post-reformation fathers. For instance, the Synod of 1571 
decided: “All matters shall be presented by the President specifically 
and orderly; he shall also gain the opinion of the whole assembly 
concerning the matter at hand, and take the vote of those eligible to 
vote, after which he will announce in the maim the opinion of the ma- 
jority; the Clerk will record the results and read the same to the as- 
sembly, in order that the decision may be established by common con- 
sent.” 1 

Jan&en informs us that the earlier assemblies in the Reformed 
Churches of the Netherlands would vote twice on every issue. The 
first vote was taken to determine the opinion of the majority. Then 
a second vote followed for the purpose of making the expressed opinion 
of the majority the unanimous decision of the whole gathering. Thus 
matters would literally be agreed upon by common consent. 2 

An example of this common consent method of procedure is also 
illustrated in the final article of the Church Order, Article 86, which 
states that the articles of the Church Order have been adopted by 
common consent. And this article and its declaration date back to the 
very first regular Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, the 
Synod of Emden, 1571. (Cf. Acts, 1571, Article 53.) 

Today we ballot or vote only once on each issue. Does this mean 
that minorities are ignored and silenced by majorities, sometimes by 
bare majorities? Does it mean that minorities are forced to accept 
the opinions of the majorities? No. Whatever is decided by majority 
vote becomes settled and binding for all, not against the will of minor- 
ities, but by their own consent. Minorities conform themselves volun- 
tarily to the officially expressed opinion of the majority, for the sake 
of good order and the welfare of the Churches concerned. In other 


1. Bouwman: <xereformeerd. Xerkrecht, 1934, II, 54. 

2. Jansen: Korte Verklaring, etc.. 1923. pp. 164 and 363. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


145 


words, minorities now silently submit themselves to the opinion ex- 
pressed by their brethren of the majority. And, let it be said, the 
minorities at our ecclesiastical assemblies are in duty bound to do so. 
For note that every Church has voluntarily joined itself to the feder- 
ation of Churches forming one denomination. Together they have 
agreed to cooperate, upon the basis of the Church Order, which Church 
Order presupposes and even expresses cooperation on the part of all 
the Churches regarding all decisions which agree with the Word of 
God and the Church Order in force. Read again the present article: 
“• . ; and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be 
considered settled and binding. . ” 

# Furthermore, Biblical example also prescribes submission to deci- 
sions mutually taken. (Confer, Acts 15:22-29, especially verse 28.) 
The Assembly at Jerusalem made authoritative and binding decisions 
for all the Churches. 

8. All decisions settled and binding. 

Doubtlessly this double expression is used purposefully. Anything 
that is settled should not continue .to be the subject of discussion at 
ecclesiastical gatherings. That would raise discord and require much 
time needed for other matters. The second word, “binding,” indicates 
that all the Churches are obligated to live up to the decisions of the 
assemblies concerned. 

This provision is indeed a jewel of great value. It is as indispen- 
sable for Reformed church government as the connecting-rod is for 
your car. 

However, inasmuch as this principle is important and indispensable 
it should never be abused. Let decisions be taken upon due consider- 
ation, and only after the majority has endeavored to prove the neces- 
sity, permissability and desirability of the matter proposed. And let 
us avoid needless multiplication of rules and decisions. And when 
conclusions have been reached, let us not begin to advocate a reversal 
unless we are fully persuaded that the Churches have erred when 
they decided on a certain issue as they did. At times brethren and 
Consistories begin to advocate for the reversal of decisions almost as 
soon as these decisions have been passed, and often seemingly largely 
from personal inclination or opinion, and not so much from the urge of 
soul-bom convictions and genuine concern for the Churches. 

That which has been mutually decided upon at our assemblies, 
should be considered settled, and should be considered binding. And 
to this rule the article appends only two general, but all-important 
exceptions. 

9. Two exceptions to the foregoing rule. 

Which are the two exceptions to the foregoing rule? They are 
embodied in the concluding statement of Art. 31, and reads as fol- 
lows: “. . . unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with 
the Articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by 
a General Synod.” 

This exception embodies the great Reformation principle regarding 
the supremacy of the Word of God, first of all. The Reformation 
recognized no authority above or beside the Bible. The Church of 
Rome had virtually elevated the Church through its councils above the 
Bible. The Church’s interpretation of God’s Word became binding for 
the conscience of all believers. In case of conflict between the Bible 
and Rome, the believer was to follow Rome. The Reformation again 
made the Bible the final court of appeal, not only for the Churches, but 


146 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


also for the individual believers. The Word of God became once more 
the only rule for faith and life. Consequently, when our forebears 
agreed that all conclusions properly reached at ecclesiastical assem- 
blies should be considered settled and binding they did not neglect 
to add: . . unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God.” If 
a conclusion proves to be contrary to the Bible the matter is not to be 
considered settled and binding. Then the matter may again be dis- 
cussed and then the decision need not be adhered to. For that which 
is contrary to God’s Word should be altered as soon as possible and 
does not bind the believer. 

The question is sometimes asked: To whom must it be proved that 
a certain decision is in conflict with the Bible, before a Church or an 
individual may count that a matter is not settled and binding? Must 
the ecclesiastical assembly which made the decision first declare that 
the unBiblical nature of the decision has been proven, before any one 
may withhold submission? Or may a Church or an individual with- 
hold submission when that Church or individual is fully convinced that 
the conclusion reached is unBiblical, even before the assembly con- 
cerned has reversed its conclusion? The latter by all means. The 
Church or the Churches cannot bind the conscience. The Bible only, 
as God’s infallible and authoritative Word, can do this. If one is 
convinced that the Churches bid him to do one thing, and the Bible 
another, he must follow what he believes to be Scriptural. Of course, 
he should study the matter carefully and prayerfully before refusing 
submission. Rashness would be altogether out of place. And of course 
he must do all he can to show the assembly concerned what he be- 
lieves to be the error of its way. 

If after due consideration the assembly concerned decides that its 
decision is unBiblical, then instant reversal is naturally in order. If, 
however, the appellant cannot persuade the assembly, and the assem- 
bly fails to persuade the appellant, and the appellant does not feel 
free before God to submit and conform himself, then the Churches 
must bear with the aggrieved brother, if at all possible. If, however, 
the matter be of far-reaching import, then the aggrieved brother 
should be asked to conform and submit as long as he remains to be a 
member of the Church concerned. If his conscience will not at all per- 
mit this, he should ultimately affiliate with a Church not so binding 
his conscience'. 

There is a second exception. If any decision is contrary to the 
Church Order in force, the matter need not be considered settled and 
binding. Denominational unity and co-operation rests upon a set of 
definite rules, mutually agreed upon. The 86 articles of our Church 
Order are these rules for us. No decision should ever be made which 
runs counter to these agreements of federation. If such decisions are 
made these need not be considered settled or binding. The aggrieved 
Church or individual should make its or his mind known to the as- 
sembly concerned and ask for a revision or nullification. In the mean- 
time the Church or party appealing or petitioning should conform it- 
self or himself to the decision in question if at all possible. But no 
one should be urged to do so against his conscience. If the assembly, 
after due consideration, finds that the decision in question does not 
run counter to the Church Order, then the party or parties concerned 
should submit and conform, as long as he remains a member of one of 
the Churches concerned. But again, in minor matters Consistories and 
other assemblies may exercise a great deal of tolerance, bearing the 
weaker brother according to Paul’s instruction to the Church at Rome 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 147 

(Romans 14), meanwhile instructing him with patience and kindness 
in Christ. 

The concluding words of Article 31 indicate that the Church Order 
may be revised, as also Article 86 clearly states, but only by the Gen- 
eral Synod. But as long as it is not changed it should be respected. 
To ignore it, as is sometimes done, or to decide things out of harmony 
with the Church Order, constitute an essential undermining of our 
whole denominational or ecclesiastical life, and is dangerous to the 
purity of the Church of Christ as we represent it. 


ARTICLE XXXII 

The proceedings of all assemblies shall begin by calling upon 
the Name of God and be closed unth thanksgiving . 

BEGINNING AND ENDING ALL ASSEMBLIES WITH PRAYER 

1. The history and value of this ruling. 

The incorporation of this provision in our Church Order goes back 
to the first regular Synod of our mother Churches, i. e., the Synod of 
Emden, 1571, which ruled: “When thus assembled, the Minister of the 
Church where the meeting is held, or if the Church is vacant, the 
president of the former meeting, shall lead in prayer with a view to 
the election of a president, an assistant and a clerk. . . . The president, 
having been appointed, shall then lead in prayer with a view to all the 
work before the gathering/’* 

But in 1581, at the Synod of Middelburg, the provision for two 
distinct prayers was altered. The provision, namely, for a separate 
prayer regarding the election of directors for the meeting, was 
dropped, and the wording of a ruling pertaining to the second prayer 
was retained so that we now read: “The proceedings of all assemblies 
shall begin by calling upon the Name of God. . .” Dutch: “De hande- 
lingen aller samenkomsten. . .” Originally the word “proceedings” 
in this article therefore referred to the actual questions requiring 
action on the part of the assembly. Later the term was taken to 
refer to all work performed, including the opening and closing of 
the meetings. And thus matters stand today. 

The provision of Article 32 might be considered unnecessary. Why 
should our Church Order stipulate that ecclesiastical meetings should 
begin and end with prayer? Would any serious-minded group of men 
think of doing otherwise? 

We may be happy that the ruling is actually unnecessary for us 
at present. May it ever remain to be such! But what could be more 
important than prayer and thanksgiving at our ecclesiastical gather- 
ings? All our work would be fruitless without the Lord’s blessing. 
And problem upon problem remains unsolved except the Father of 
lights (James 1:17) enlightens us. Then surely no Church Order 
would be complete without recognition of these facts and without defi- 
nite mention of these important numbers on the program of every 
ecclesiastical gathering. Besides, in days of spiritual decline, the 
good custom provided for in this article sometimes tends to fall into 


♦Bouwman: Q-eref. Xerfcrecht, 1934, II, p. 93. 


148 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


disuse. Think of the gross neglect regarding family prayers in many 
Christian circles. And so it is not altogether unnecessary that Article 
32 should occupy the place of a constant guardian against neglect of 
prayer at our ecclesiastical assemblies. 

2. The matter of free and liturgical prayers. 

Should those who lead in prayer at our assemblies use words of 
their own choice, or should they use one of our liturgical prayers 
written for ecclesiastical assemblies? The use of one of our form 
prayers for ecclesiastical gatherings is sometimes advisable. But no 
one is bound to these. And when there is more than one session, per- 
haps several sessions, the constant repetition of the same prayer 
would not be conducive to the spirit of prayer. As a rule a free 
prayer is to be preferred to a form prayer. 

However, if one is called upon to lead whose talents are very much 
limited, then let such a one use one of our form prayers, written and 
approved for these gatherings. Furthermore, when sharp differences 
arise, particularly when a brother’s name or standing is involved, it 
may be well to use a liturgical prayer in preference to a free prayer, 
to avoid offense. We so much need God’s special guidance and the 
control of His Spirit when the atmosphere is tense and the situation 
perhaps critical. And yet, under special circumstances, it is hard to 
pray objectively, so that all the members of the meeting can say amen 
in their hearts to the prayer uttered. But when a form prayer is 
used, no one can be offended, and all should be able to pray fervently. 

But again, as a rule, a free prayer is to be preferred above a form 
prayer, especially when there are several sessions. For although the 
article, strictly speaking, only calls for prayer at the beginning of 
the assembly and at its close, certainly our custom of beginning and 
ending each session with prayer is altogether proper. And further- 
more, when one chooses his own words and thoughts in prayer, his 
prayer can be made appropriate to the special problems and conditions 
which obtain. 

Our Churches have one approved “Opening Prayer for Ecclesiastical 
Assemblies,” and one “Closing Prayer for Ecclesiastical Assemblies.” 
(Cf. Psalter Hymnal, appended pp. 80, 81.) There is also an “Opening 
Prayer for the Meeting of the Deacons” (Idem, pp. 81, 82.) This 
prayer does not date back to Reformation days as do the others, but 
to the beginning of the 18th century. It was never officially approved 
at the time of its incorporation into the liturgy, as were the two first 
mentioned prayers. But for more than 200 years it has been acknowl- 
edged as one of our official prayers. And by its publication along 
with the other prayers upon decision of our Synod of 1934, it really 
stands fully approved. 

3. Pre-service prayer by Consistories. 

Does Article 32 require pre-service prayers by the Consistory? 
No, it does not. The Church Order does not regulate congregational 
worship. And this article refers only to consistorial, classical, and 
synodical gatherings, the official assemblies of the Churches. 

Seemingly the good custom of a pre-service meeting for prayer by 
the Consistory was born from the pressure of circumstances. During 
the days of the Secession in Holland (Afscheiding, 1834, and follow- 
ing years) congregational worship was often disturbed by the inter- 
ference of the government, or antagonistic citizens. The office-bearers 
in charge of a service therefore felt the need of first asking for God’s 
protection and blessing, praying in particular that God might qualify 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


149 


His servant to bring His Word without fear and hindrance, and with 
His indispensable blessing. The spirit of a revived faith in God and 
His Christ as our only Redeemer and of man’s absolute dependence 
on God’s Spirit in the work of grace, no doubt also urged them to 
seek God’s blessing before each service. 

The Churches of the second exodus from the corrupt Hervormde 
Kerk, the movement known as the Doleantie, 1886, quickly adopted 
this good usage from the Secession Churches. 

Moreover, pre-service prayers by the Consistories are also required 
by the fact that every service is in charge of the Consistory. Well 
may the office-bearers therefore pray for God’s benediction upon the 
Minister and the people of God who are about to serve Him. 

4. Sermons or devotional addresses, etc., at our assemblies. 

Does Article 32 require the preaching of sermons, or the inclusion 
of devotional addresses at our assemblies? It does not. Article 32 
clearly stipulates that prayer and thanksgiving shall be offered with 
a view to the matters which must be transacted. The ecclesiastical 
assemblies are not meant to be meetings for worship or instruction. 
Consistory meetings as well as classical and synodical gatherings are 
assemblies of the Church or the Churches at which the business of 
the Church or Churches is acted upon. They are not inspirational 
conventions or Bible Institutes. The Churches must be governed ac- 
cording to God’s Word and according to the varying conditions as 
they arise from time to time. This is the business of the assemblies. 
Inspiration we need. Increased knowledge we need. Worship and 
praise we must. But all this is not the business of ecclesiastical as- 
semblies. 

Does this mean that we should not be devotional at our Church 
gatherings? Not at all. Let the meetings begin with prayer and 
praise and song. And if a gathering feels that a brief address by 
one of the brethren upon a passage of God’s Word is desirable, there 
can be no objections. Only let those who so address our assemblies 
preferably choose passages which stand directly related to the gov- 
ernment of God’s Church. But never should our assemblies make a 
specialty of addresses and devotionals. The correct government of 
our Churches is so all-important and urgent that we cannot afford to 
change the character of our ecclesiastical assemblies. We may not 
do so! Neither, of course, should we permit them to become mere 
“business meetings,” that is, meetings at which the financial affairs 
and the external management of our ecclesiastical life is discussed 
and acted upon. That would be far worse. Let us keep balance and 
spend the major part of our precious time and efforts for the promo- 
tion of the spiritual welfare of our people and their Churches. 

Which songs should we sing at our ecclesiastical assemblies? Only 
those that have been officially approved by Synod for worship in our 
Churches. In the past it has happened that even our Synod would 
use books not synodically approved. Why should we do this? The 
very excellent content of our Psalter and of our Psalter Hymnal makes 
the use of other books at our assemblies wholly unnecessary. To do 
so encourages irregularity. If our office-bearers, at official gatherings 
of the Churches use unapproved books, what then will we say if local 
Churches introduce such books for worship? 

Is it necessary that the Bible be read at the opening of our ecclesi- 
astical assemblies? In consideration of what has already been said 
we would answer negatively. It is not necessary. However, it is a 
good custom. The Word of God should occupy a central and control- 


150 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ling place in our lives. Therefore, it is altogether appropriate to 
read a fitting portion of God's Word as we begin to deliberate in the 
affairs of God’s people and His Church. 

Should we encourage the giving” of all kinds of addresses at our 
classical and synodical gatherings by men representing various good 
causes? At our ecclesiastical gatherings we come together to trans- 
act the business of the Churches, and to promote their spiritual wel- 
fare, and not to listen to various addresses and inspirational speeches. 
Consequently, addresses by representatives of various agencies should 
be few. Those f.i. that wish to address our Synods should receive 
permission from Synod itself. And the privilege of addressing Synod 
should only be extended to applicants, if Synod is convinced that the 
brother’s cause and message should be heard by Synod; never as a 
matter of mere good-will and courtesy. 


ARTICLE XXXIII. 

Those who are delegated to the assemblies shall bring with 
them their credentials and instructions , signed by those sending 
them, and they shall have a vote in all matters, except such as 
particularly concern their persons or Churches. 

CREDENTIALS AND INSTRUCTIONS; RIGHT OF VOTE AT 
MAJOR ASSEMBLIES 

1. Credentials. 

The main content of this article goes back to the first regular 
Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Emden, 1571). Proper 
certificates, testifying that those who claimed to be delegates from 
a certain Church or group of Churches, (Classis or Particular Synod), 
were actually delegated, were necessary especially then. 

The Churches were just beginning to reach a period of stability, 
having gone through a long struggle of reformation. Moreover, they 
often knew but little of each other, distances being much greater than 
now, inasmuch as modem means of travel were still unknown. And 
the bloody persecutions of Reformation days had prevented them 
from establishing regular contacts with their fellow-believers. So the 
Churches felt that all who claimed to be the legal representatives of 
a Reformed Church or group of Churches should carry with them 
proper certificates, verifying their delegation. Thus fraudulent im- 
postors and enemies of the Churches would be excluded. 

Moreover, our fathers no doubt felt that at official gatherings of 
the Churches only those should be received who came with official 
credentials. And so it is still for us today. The danger of fraud is 
now very small. But certain affairs simply require official action. It 
would be improper to organize an ecclesiastical assembly merely upon 
the testimony of those who claim to be delegates. All such should be 
able to produce a black-on-white letter of appointment and delegation. 
This is too self-evident to require further discussion. 

2. Instructions. 

Those delegated to our assemblies must come with authority to act. 
It must be very clear that the representatives of the various Churches 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


151 


are more than visiting delegates. Thus the assembly concerned will 
know that all its members are there as real representatives of the 
Churches which sent them. And decisions made will thus have binding 
effect for all the Churches assembled. 

And even as a written certificate of delegation should be produced 
and presented^ at the assembly meeting, so also a written copy of the 
instructions given; that is the authority delegated should be presented. 

What is included under the term instructions, as used in the present 
article ? 

First of all a charge on the part of the sending body to its repre- 
sentatives to help decide on all matters which are brought before the 
meeting in due order* It being understood and expressed, however, 
that they shall take no part in, nor assume responsibility for matters 
which are contrary to the Bible as interpreted in the doctrinal stand- 
ards of the Churches, or which are contrary to the rules of govern- 
ment agreed upon. Our Synod of 1888 ruled that all delegates to our 
major assemblies should be charged and authorized to help transact 
all matters brought before the assemblies in due order, according to 
the Word of God, as interpreted in the Forms of Unity, and the ac- 
cepted Church Order. This ruling was made to assure the Churches 
that all the delegates would come properly authorized. And this 
charge includes the right and duty to consider all legitimately pre- 
sented grievances and protests. 

In the second place the instructions which delegates to major as- 
semblies must bring with them according to Article 33 would concern 
matters which the sending body itself brings to the meeting. In other 
words, if the Church or Classis has any overtures or questions for 
the assembly, these should be written out on the credential letter. 
Instructions written on separate sheets of paper should be properly 
signed as well as the credential letter. The signing is, of course, done 
by the president and clerk of the sending and authorizing body. 

3. Should the charge and authorization to delegates be specific 
or general? 

The instructions to delegates should, as a rule, always be general. 
To illustrate, no Consistory should endeavor to instruct its delegates 
to Classis how to vote on any particular issue. Each delegate must 
use his own best judgment, and then vote as his conscience before 
God bids him vote. Abstractly and inherently the Churches would 
have a right to give their delegates a definite mandate, telling them 
how to vote. But the true welfare of the Churches requires that all 
delegates have their hands free and unbound. For our assemblies are 
not merely meetings at which the votes of the various Churches are 
recorded. But they are gatherings at which the problems and the 
affairs of the Churches are mutually considered and decided upon. 
Our gatherings are and should remain deliberative assemblies. And 
our delegates should not be reduced to the role of voting machines. 

It is a very good practice for the sending bodies to consider the 
major issues which will require action at the assemblies to be held. 
That promotes general interest and counteracts hurtful ignorance. 
And that will help those that go as delegates to the major gatherings 
to know the mind of their brethren at home. But the delegates should 
not be bound. After a good discussion at the major assembly they 
may feel compelled to vote exactly opposite from their first con- 
templations. 

Only when the circumstances are very extraordinary, as when a 
sending body knows all the issues involved in a specific case, would 


152 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


it be justified to instruct its delegates how to vote. So, for example, 
at the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, some Particular Synods had in- 
structed their delegates previously to vote so as to maintain the purity 
of doctrine, i.e., against the Arminians. Or as Jansen states, sending 
bodies can only give definite instruction as to how delegates should 
vote regarding matters which are clearly expressed in Holy Writ, and 
concerning which therefore further deliberation is unnecessary, and 
change of opinion out of place. 

What else should credential letters contain in order to be complete ? 
An assurance on the part of the sending body that it will abide by 
all the decisions of the assembly taken in conformity with Holy Writ 
as interpreted in the Three Forms of Unity (the Confession, the Hei- 
delberg Catechism, and the Five Articles of Dort). The sending body 
ought to state in its credentials that it will regard such decisions as 
settled and binding, and that it will faithfully help to put them into 
practice. 

Really an assurance as here referred to is implied and understood 
in the instruction already discussed. It is also essential to all de- 
nominational unity and cooperation. But it is well to. give deliberate 
expression to this obligation and intent, inasmuch as some Churches 
and individuals at times forget these matters. The spirit of inde- 
pendentism sometimes asserts itself, when cooperation should hold sway. 

The credential letter, almost needless to say, is properly concluded 
with Christian greetings and a committal to the grace of God and the 
guidance of His Spirit. 

4. The Signature. 

Why is it added: “signed by those sending them”? Years ago, in 
the land of our forefathers, when the relationship between State and 
Church was very close, the town or city officials would sometimes sign 
the credentials of ecclesiastical delegates Our fathers, however, 
feared State dominance and so they soon objected to this practice and 
insisted that the ecclesiastical body sending should also write and 
sign the credentials and instructions. Moreover, every official docu- 
ment must be properly signed. 

The phrase, “signed by those sending them,” therefore originally 
provided for the signing of all credentials, and for the signing by 
the proper authorities. For us today it merely means that no letter 
of delegation is valid except it be properly signed. 

5. Why does the Church Order provide that delegates shall not vote 
when a matter particularly concerns their persons or Churches? 

As a matter of common sense and fairness. It is very hard for us 
to judge calmly and objectively when we ourselves are concerned. Yet 
every decision should be objective. And so the Churches have wisely 
agreed in the interest of the Kingdom, that those who are directly 
involved in a matter before an ecclesiastical gathering shall not vote. 
Let the other delegates decide and then let all abide by the opinion 
of the majority. 

Abstractly it might be reasoned, that all lawful delegates have a 
right to vote in all matters coming before the gathering. But as a 
matter of expedience we have agreed to forego our rights when we 
ourselves are directly involved. 

It is also true that in certain cases it would be manifestly unfair 
to have a delegate sit in judgment over himself. Particularly if he 
should stand accused on any score by such as are not delegated and 
who therefore would have no right to vote. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


153 


6. Advisory votes. 

There is one class of brethren to whom the Church Order accords 
advisory votes at classical gatherings. Art. 42, n. 1. provides that if 
a Church have more than one Minister, the Minister or Ministers not 
delegated to a certain classical meeting shall also have the right to 
attend Classis “with advisory vote.” Such Ministers are therefore 
privileged to go not only to Classis, but are permitted to speak their 
mind on any matter up for consideration. They help Classis in all its 
deliberations, but they do not have a decisive vote. The membership 
of a Classis does not consist of Ministers and Elders, but of Churches, 
Each Church is entitled to two votes and no more. 

Visiting Ministers, i.e., Ministers of Christian Reformed Churches 
belonging to another Classis who happen to visit a Classical gather- 
ing, are often accorded the privilege of the floor, i.e., advisory vote. 
There is nothing against this practice as long as such visitors do not 
abuse the privilege extended to them by asking the floor too often. 

Our seminary professors are expected to be present at Synod in 
order to serve Synod in an advisory capacity. They have an advisory 
vote on all matters and serve as advisors and on the various Ad- 
visory Committees of Synod. 

Is it proper and in harmony with our Church Order to extend the 
right of vote to Ministers not delegated? No it is not. It has hap- 
pened that Home Missionaries, f.i., would be given the right to vote 
by a Classis in spite of the fact that they were not authorized and 
delegated by any Church. Should our Home Missionaries then be 
excluded from an active part in our Classical gatherings? Not at all. 
They should be delegated by their Consistories when their turn comes, 
just as regular Ministers are. At all other Classical gatherings they 
receive an advisory vote, as Art. 42 stipulates. In many instances our 
Home Missionaries will be the Ministers of some small Churches hav- 
ing no other Ministers. In such cases they naturally go to Classis 
regularly as full-fledged delegates. 


ARTICLE XXXIV. 

In all assemblies there shall be not only a president, but also 
a clerk to keep a faithful record of all important matters. 

ASSEMBLY OFFICERS 

1. The officers specified in Article 34. 

In Dutch the officers of an ecclesiastical gathering are known as 
moderators. The officers as a body are designated as “het modera- 
men.” The word “moderamen” is Latin, and signifies that by which 
anything is governed and managed. Rendered in English this term 
would therefore read, “the management” or “the body of directors.” 
But the expression has no direct English equivalent. We do speak of 
moderators. A moderator is (1) “one who restrains or regulates,” or 
(2) “The presiding officer of a meeting, especially in the Presbyterian 
and Congregational Churches.” * 

We use the expression “assembly officers” although the word “offi- 
cer” is really too official, too authoritative for the present purpose. 


•Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary. 


154 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Compare our “office” with the Dutch “ambt,” and our “office-bearer” 
with the Dutch “ambtsdrager.” They who are called upon to lead an 
ecclesiastical assembly do not occupy an authoritative position, as 
f.i. our Ministers, Elders, and Deacons do in their respective offices. 
They who lead our ecclesiastical assemblies merely guide and direct 
the assemblies as self-governing gatherings. When using the term 
“assembly officers”, these facts should be borne in mind. 

Which officers does Article 34 specify? Only two: a president and 
a clerk. The very oldest redactions of our Church Order, dating back 
to 1571 and 1578, also provided for the appointment of an “assessor,” 
that is, an assistant to the president. But in 1581 this provision for 
this third officer for ecclesiastical assemblies was dropped, seemingly 
because it was judged that ecclesiastical gatherings do not always 
require an assistant president, as f. i. our Consistory meetings. Yet 
today all our Consistories have a vice-president, an assistant Clerk, a 
treasurer, and often other minor functionaries. Our Synods also in- 
variably elect not only a president and a clerk, but also a vice-presi- 
dent and an assistant clerk. Yet our classical gatherings as a rule 
have no assistant president. 

It is certainly advisable for our classical gatherings to choose an 
assistant president as well as a president. The assistant president 
relieves the president whenever necessary; he is asked to preside by 
the president when the latter wishes to address the gathering or 
when the matter at hand concerns the person of the president; he 
reminds the president of any item or point of procedure which the 
latter may overlook, etc. The appointment of an assistant president 
by a Classis is certainly not against the Church Order, though the 
Church Order does not require it. (Classis Pella has a rule that the 
Minister next in order to preside according to Article 41, acts as as- 
sistant president.) However, it would not be amiss, when a new re- 
daction of the Church Order is prepared, to restore the old provision 
of 1571 and 1578 to Article 34. 

2. What should be remarked regarding the nature of the position of 
assembly officers? 

First of all, as has been indicated, that they do not occupy positions 
of superior authority above their brethren. Theirs is merely a posi- 
tion of leadership. They do not hold an office investing them with in- 
herent superior authority. They are “directors” charged to direct the 
affairs of the assembly concerned. The original Latin term “modera- 
men” was doubtless chosen by our fathers to stress this fact. 

In the second place, their work and charge is temporary. They are 
appointed for the length of the assembly only. Their charge ends 
when the assembly ends. Consequently they do not occupy a position 
different from other office-bearers, the assembly having disbanded. 
Presbyterian denominations seem to regard their assembly presidents 
as holding their offices until a successor has been elected at the next 
assembly. Our Classes and Synods, however, know of no permanent 
officers. It is true that our minor assemblies, i.e., our Consistories, 
are organized on a permanent basis. But Consistories are the gov- 
erning bodies of our ecclesiastical units, the individual Churches. 
Consistories are therefore permanent bodies. But even so the Church 
Order provides that if a Church have more than one Minister, these 
shall preside in turn. 

Anything which might lead to the errors and faults of hierarchical 
dominance has been avoided in our Church Order. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


155 


3. The work of clerks. 

It is the duty of the clerks of our various assemblies to keep a 
record of all important matters transacted. Accurate record should 
be kept: (1) so that the Church or Churches may know with precision 
what has been decided in any given instance. At Consistory meetings, 
f j., the minutes are referred to again and again to determine what 
has been decided at some previous meeting. Without an accurate 
record, confusion and misunderstanding and ill-will would be multi- 
plied. (2) To avoid needless duplication of work accurate records are 
also necessary. A matter thoroughly discussed and acted upon and 
properly recorded as a rule need not be reconsidered, unless circum- 
stances have altered themselves considerably, or if it be proven that 
an error has been made. Yet without a good record the same straw 
would be thrashed repeatedly. Even now, though we have good 
records, this sometimes happens. (3) And furthermore, we should 
preserve our decisions and deliverances for the benefit of posterity. 
Later generations may profit by our work, even as we are profiting 
by means of the records kept by our forefathers. The lessons of his- 
tory are ever so extremely valuable, also in the field of church 
government. 

What should our clerks record? Not the discussions and opinions 
put forward and offered for consideration at our assemblies, but only 
the conclusions reached together with the reasons or grounds for such 
conclusions, if the matter is of any import at all. It is not wise to 
enter upon the official and permanent records of our assemblies the 
discussions and opinions offered, especially not if the names of the 
brethren are mentioned, as f.i. was done in the early records of our 
Christian Reformed major assemblies.* Discussions and opinions of- 
fered are only scaffolding which is used to rear the building, not the 
building itself. It is preparatory work. To record this preliminary 
material may hamper the work in that it may exercise a restraining 
influence upon discussion. Our assemblies must continue to be delib- 
erative gatherings. The true welfare of our Churches demands this. 
Moreover, no one could give an accurate reproduction of a discussion 
unless he be a court stenographer. Our records should not become 
too bulky and too expensive. 

4. Sundry matters. 

What other matters are worthy of note in this connection? First 
of all that the person of the clerk should be a member of the Con- 
sistory, preferably an Elder. Treasurers, Building and Ground Com- 
mittees, etc., can under certain circumstances be well chosen from 
those not holding office. To do so may save the Elders much valuable 
time which they should use for the spiritual upbuilding of the Church. 
But the record of Consistory meetings contain many matters which, 
for the good of all, the Consistory only should know. 

What name should we give to our assembly records? The records 
of our Consistories and Classes we usually call minutes; those of our 
Synods, Acts. 

Minutes, as the Dutch “notulen” (from the Latin notula, derived 
from nota, meaning mark or sign) indicates a minute or detailed ac- 
count of transactions. Acts, from acta, meaning deeds, decrees, or 
resolutions, indicates a record limited to actual resolutions or decisions 
passed. Consequently the term “acts” would be the more appropriate 
to use for all the records of all our assemblies. Consistories, Classes, 
and Synods. However, it is understood by all that in naming the 

•Compiled Acts of Synod from 1857-80. 


156 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


records of our Consistories and Classes “minutes” we do not mean 
to say that these records should be detailed, recording the discussions 
as well as the decisions. 

Must our assemblies permit any member of our Churches the privi- 
lege of reading the minutes for himself? No. They may if they see 
fit, but they need not. Particularly the minutes of a Consistory may 
contain matters of discipline, which only the Consistory members 
should know. But parties involved in any case are entitled to a certi- 
fied copy of any and all decisions which touch their case. 

When should the records of our assemblies be approved ? Consistory 
minutes can conveniently be approved at the next meeting to be held, 
but the acts of Classes and Synods should be approved of while these 
assemblies are still in session, inasmuch as the membership of these 
gatherings change constantly, and no one would recall accurately all 
the rulings of a Classis or Synod taken at a previous gathering. 
Moreover, these gatherings in themselves are non-continuous. Each 
assembly must therefore pass on the correctness of its own records. 

What positions do our stated clerks occupy? Synod of 1904 (Art. 
132, 7) stipulated that the stated clerks of our Classes and Synod 
should jiot be looked upon as permanent clerks, a position unknown 
to our Churches, but that a stated clerk is a regular delegate whose 
duties are threefold: he inscribes the minutes; he attends to all offi- 
cial correspondence; and he prepares the agendum. It is well that the 
work of the stated clerks be clearly defined. Jansen does not favor 
the appointment of stated clerks. He would rather appoint a Church 
for this work so that the Consistory concerned may have the re- 
sponsibility. And then he would appoint a different Church for every 
next classical or synodical gathering to be held. These Churches 
could then also be expected to call the next classical or synodical 
gathering to be held. All this, of course, to avoid the danger of as- 
sumption of authority. But in the interest of regularity and good 
order the custom of appointing stated clerks is no doubt to be pre- 
ferred. But let every stated clerk hold himself strictly to the limi- 
tations of his charge! 

Should classical reports to our church papers be approved by the 
Classes before they are published? Preferably, yes. The Classes 
should at least indicate what should be included in these reports. 
The matter should have some measure of control. Consistories, when 
in position to do so, through church bulletins, etc., should also publish 
their activities in so far as these are of general interest to the con- 
gregation. This will help to create a sympathetic atmosphere, so 
highly desirable. 


ARTICLE XXXV. 

The office of the president is to state and explain the business 
to be transacted , to see to it that everyone observe due order 
in speaking, to silence the captious and those who cure vehement 
in speaking; and to properly discipline them if they refuse to 
listen. Furthermore his office shall cease when the assembly 
arises. 

THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTS 
1. The duty of presidents. 

Article 35 is indeed venerable with age. It was formulated in the 
year 1571. It was drafted and accepted by the first regular Synod of 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


157 


our Churches in Holland meeting in Emden, Germany, during that 
year. But it only referred to Particular and General Synods, not to 
Consistories and Classes. However, the Synod of Middelburg, 1581, 
placed this article before those which regulate the activities of all 
our assemblies, Consistories, Classes, and Synods (Articles 37 to 52). 
Consequently, from the year 1581 on, Article 35 applies to presidents 
of our Synods. However, from the nature of the case it follows that 
this article is of primary import for classical and synodical presidents. 

The first duty of our ecclesiastical presidents is “to state and ex- 
plain the business to be transacted.” For those of our gatherings 
which mail printed or typewritten agenda to the delegates or the 
delegating bodies, prior to the meeting of the assembly, this task of 
our presidents is much simplified, inasmuch as these agenda or 
programs give every delegate a rather complete knowledge of all the 
business coming before the assembly. However, certain matters may 
require explanation from time to time as they are presented for con- 
sideration and decision. As often as necessary a president should 
give elucidations. 

It should be noted that the Church Order requires that the presi- 
dent “state and explain” the business to be transacted. It does not say 
that he must constantly advise the assembly. If he feels that advice 
on his part is required he may certainly speak his mind, but then 
he should first give the gavel to the assistant president so that he 
may speak on the matter at hand in the capacity of an ordinary dele- 
gate. The president should also avoid the danger of using his position 
to swing a meeting his way. He should be as objective as possible 
in his capacity as president, and he should not forget that it is his 
task as president to direct the gathering in its free deliberation of 
all its affairs. It is his privilege and duty to guide and direct, not his 
right to pull and compel. Though he stands at the controls of the 
meeting, he may not be partial and wilful in the handling of these 
controls. 

Secondly the president must “see to it that everyone observes due 
order in speaking.” This provision sums up the main task of presi- 
dents of our major assemblies. At Consistory meetings the president 
may find it necessary to take part in the discussion again and again. 
But at classical and synodical gatherings the task of our presidents 
will be largely that of directing the deliberations. 

By observance of due order the Church Order refers to an orderly 
transaction of business. Delegates, f i., must “stick to the point” in 
their discussions. If any one begins to talk about things not related 
to the matter up for consideration the president must stoo him and 
call his attention to his mistake. If the same delegate should desire 
to speak repeatedly on the same matter while others are waiting for 
the floor, the president should refuse him the privilege of speaking. 
As a rule the same delegate should not speak oftener than twice or 
thrice on any one matter. Hard and fast rules in this respect should 
not be passed, for under certain circumstances a delegate might have 
to speak very often. Neither should we by arbitrary, parliamentary 
rules, make it impossible for a brother to give an assembly all the 
light that he may have. Nor should we make it impossible for any 
delegate to unburden his Christian conscience. An ecclesiastical 
assembly is not to be put on par with an ordinary business meeting 
of some board. But no delegate to Classis or Synod should abuse his 
privileges and hold the floor repeatedly. The presidents must use a 
great deal of discretion also on this score. 


158 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


It stands to reason that all delegates should use good manners in 
addressing the president or the assembly. If any should fail to do so, 
the president must call him to order. 

When a matter has been considered for some time and no new 
light is being shed on the issues involved, and the gathering seems 
ready for a conclusion, the president ought to summarize the main 
sentiments expressed, and then if necessary suggest that a motion 
be offered. Endless discussions, take up a great deal of time; they 
promote a nervous tension which is harmful ; and they are often nearly 
fruitless. But premature motions and motions prematurely passed 
for a vote are also to be condemned. After a calm and careful dis- 
cussion on the matter at hand, a motion should be formulated, and 
then after a reasonable consideration of the merits and demerits of 
the motion, it should be voted upon. 

There has 'been a tendency during recent years to multiply rules 
and regulations for our classical and synodical gatherings (cf. Acts of 
Synod, 1934, pp. 306-312). It is doubtful whether the majority of 
delegates to our assemblies will and can bear all these detailed rules 
in mind. This is true for our Elders, but also for our Ministers. 
Moreover, discussion should be free and not hampered by a large 
number of technical rules. We fear the rules approved in 1934 are 
too detailed and rigid. It is doubtful whether any Synod can really 
observe all these rules. Our Synods should continue to be deliberative 
gatherings. Strict enforcement of the rules adopted would keep many 
a delegate from speaking his opinion for fear that he would be trans- 
gressing some rule and should be called out of order. We should 
have a few fundamental rules perchance, over and above what the 
Church Order gives us. But let us ever avoid sets of detailed, legalis- 
tic, parliamentary rules. Our ecclesiastical gatherings are not politi- 
cal gatherings. Even in political gatherings and gatherings akin to 
these, rule upon rule and precept upon precept often work their harm 
and are grossly abused. 

In the third place, Article 25 stipulates that it is the president's 
duty “to silence the captious and those that are vehement in speak- 
ing; and to properly discipline them if they refuse to listen." Captious 
persons are such as are fault-finders and overly critical. The original 
Latin term is “acriores,” and designates those who irritate by their 
sharp and cutting remarks. In the Dutch we have “knibbelachtigen.” 
This term applies to those that are small and petty in their criticism; 
real fault-finders. 

The use of sarcasm should seldom be used, especially at our 
ecclesiastical gatherings. Cutting remarks should likewise be ruled 
out. Any unchristian word, attitude, or assumption should be contra- 
band at our ecclesiastical meetings. 

Those that are too vehement must also be silenced by the president. 
The Latin word here is “contentiose,” and the Dutch “heftig.” The 
term vehement, therefore, refers to those that are too violent in 
their words. Vehemence in speech is usually provoked by anger and 
is easily carried too far. Even if a speaker is motivated in his ve- 
hemence by righteous indignation he should watch his words. Any- 
one who loses control of himself in this respect should be called back 
to his normal self by the chair. 

Usually a word from the president will be enough. But if a mere 
reminder or admonition is not enough, then the president must forbid 
him in the name of the meeting to continue. This is what the Church 
Order means when it speaks of disciplining those that refuse to listen. 
Sometimes the president may find it necessary to call for a motion 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


159 


of disapproval on the part of the assembly. In extreme cases the 
president should ask the offending brother to leave the meeting in 
order that the assembly may decide in his absence what is to be done 
m his case. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) already advised that this 
latter procedure might be followed in some cases. 

If the president himself should offend on any of these points it 
would become the duty of the assistant president to call him to order. 
And if need be the assembly should be called upon to censure him by 
a vote of disapproval. 

From all the foregoing it follows that the task of presidents at our 
assemblies is far from easy. Not all are equally well qualified for 
this important function. Says Bouwman, “A president must be a 
man possessing calmness of character, clearness of insight, and de- 
termination of will”.* Self-control, the ability to give definite leader- 
ship, and the ability of expressing one’s self clearly and fluently may 
also be mentioned as desirable qualities for presidents of our major 
assemblies. He should be a man of ability and conviction; and who, 
because of these qualities, has the confidence of the assembly over 
which he is ' to preside. 

2. The duration of their office. 

The Church Order stipulates: “His office shall cease when the as- 
sembly arises.” Which simply means that when the meetings of the 
assembly have ended the president’s term as president has also ended. 
He is not appointed for a definite period of time, but only for the dura- 
tion of the assembly concerned, whether that assembly meet for just 
one session or for several sessions, for one day or for several days. 

This provision is very natural. The president’s office is not an office 
in its ordinary sense, but only a function. Yet this provision has been 
included in the Church Order for a good purpose, namely, to make 
it very clear that the presidents of our assemblies are not to be con- 
sidered superior officers. We have no bishops as Churches with the 
hierarchical form of government have. (The Roman Catholic Church 
is hierarchical in the extreme. The Methodist and other Churches are 
also essentially hierarchical in Church government, although in a 
very mild form.) Our Churches are ruled neither by priests nor 
bishops, but they govern themselves through duly organized assem- 
blies. 

In many Presbyterian denominations, as also in the (Dutch) Re- 
formed Church of America, the president (called Moderator) of major 
gatherings is considered to be chosen for the term of one year. The 
Moderator chosen one year is recognized as such until his “successor” 
is chosen at the next general assembly. Several authorities, however, 
realize that this custom does not agree with Presbyterian Church 
government and that it finds no support in the Constitution of said 
Churches. It is well that our Church Order definitely rules a concep- 
tion as just alluded to out of court. 

It is worthy of note that our Reformed fathers were very much 
afraid of the evils and dangers of hierarchism. To avoid hierarchical 
evils and tendencies, Article 37 even provides that in our Consistories, 
if a Church have more than one Minister, these Ministers shall pre- 
side in turn. And again, to avoid hierarchical evils and tendencies, 
Article 41 provides that the same brother shall not preside at two 
successive classical meetings. 

But if the directors of our assemblies serve only while these bodies 


*Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, II. p. 87. 


160 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


are in session, then who takes care of matters that require the atten- 
tion of these assemblies while they are not in session ? For urgent 
matters every Classis has a Classical Committee, consisting of three 
of its office-bearers. So also Synod has a Synodical Committee. 
These committees act upon matters which cannot wait until the as- 
sembly meets. Their task is limited to matters which require imme- 
diate action and yet are not of such a nature that a special session of 
the assembly is warranted. These committees must submit a report 
of all their activities to the next assembly concerned, for the approval 
or disapproval of these bodies. Men who serve on these committees 
should have a thorough knowledge and a seasoned judgment. They 
should know the Church Order and its underlying principles. Elders 
are just as eligible, as far as their office is concerned, for these com- 
mittees as Ministers are. Needless to say, members of Classical or 
Synodical Committees should carefully avoid the assumption of au- 
thority not entrusted to them. 

Those who wish to address letters or reports to our assemblies 
while they are not in session can write to the Stated Clerks, of whom 
we have already spoken. (Cf. comments under Article 34). Our minor 
assemblies, i.e., our Consistories, all have regular clerks. 


ARTICLE XXXVI. 

The Classis has the same jurisdiction over the Consistory as 
the Particular Synod has over the Classis and the General Synod 
over the Particular. 

AUTHORITY OF MAJOR ASSEMBLIES OVER MINOR 
ASSEMBLIES 

1. Major assemblies have authority over minor assemblies. 

Our English redaction of Article 36 speaks of jurisdiction. We be- 
lieve the word authority would have been a better term to use. The 
word jurisdiction has a distinct legal bias. It is derived from the 
Latin “ jurisdiction (jus - law, dico - to say) which in the first place 
refers to the administration of justice in civil matters. Now the orig- 
inal Latin Church Order did not use the word “jurisdictio,” but “auc- 
toritas,” from the word “auctor” which signifies an author, founder, 
originator, etc., or an advisor, counselor, promoter, pattern. “Auctori- 
tas” as used in the Latin original of the Church Order indicates the 
right to act, order, rule, advise, or exhort. Our English word author- 
ity indicates the right to act officially. Consequently we would rather 
speak of authority than of jurisdiction. Perhaps the simplest and 
safest reading would be, “The classis has the same rights over the 
Consistory . . .” The word authority is often used in a legalistic, com- 
pelling sense whereas the Church Order refers to a moral and spir- 
itual authority. 

The practical import of this brief consideration is illustrated by 
the decision of the Synod of 1926, which ruled that major assemblies 
had the right to depose a Consistory inasmuch as Article 36 attributed 
jurisdiction to_Classes over Consistories. Now aside from the question 
whether or not a Classis has the right to depose a Consistory, Synod 
should not have based its decision on the use of the word jurisdiction 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


161 


m Article 36, inasmuch as the use of this term is really a mistake, 
out of keeping with the fundamental principles of the Church Order. 

Is the exercise of ecclesiastical authority as provided for in Article 
36 based on Biblical example? Yes. We read in Acts 16 that the 
Church in Antioch sent delegates to the Church at Jerusalem to con- 
sider with it certain vexing questions regarding the keeping of the 
Mosaic ordinances. The Apostles and Elders were gathered to con- 
sider this matter. After due deliberation certain decisions were 
reached. These decisions were laid upon the Churches as necessary 
things (vs. 28). The Churches had to respect the decisions of this 
assembly. The authoritative character of this gathering should not 
be explained by saying that this meeting was primarily a gathering 
of Apostles, men who were infallibly led in their official work by the 
Spirit of God. The Elders at Jerusalem took part in the work of this 
assembly, and even the whole body of believers seems to have been 
involved at least indirectly (cf. vs. 22). And the representatives from 
Antioch took an active part in the deliberations and decisions (vs. 12). 

This meeting at Jerusalem therefore clearly partakes of the char- 
acter of major assemblies. It may be regarded as a forerunner of 
what became well-organized and regular later on. True, we do not 
read of regularly-instituted major gatherings. But in the first place, 
since the Apostles were still alive and active, there was no urgent 
need for major assemblies. And furthermore, the Church of Christ 
was just beginning to manifest itself in well-organized groups locally. 
In other words, time did not yet permit and demand the regular or- 
ganization of major assemblies. Even so we do read of other instances 
where Churches take united action (Rom. 15:26; II Cor. 8:19). 

The exercise of authority on the part of major assemblies over 
minor assemblies is also wholly reasonable. For indeed, groups of 
Churches have a larger sphere of influence and domain of authority 
than just one Church. Each particular Church has a certain authority 
received of Christ and vested in its Consistory. Now when a Church, 
through its Consistory, sends delegates to a major assembly, that 
Church thereby brings a measure of its authority to this assembly, at 
the same time submitting itself to the accumulated authority of all the 
Churches convened. Indeed, the very fact that a particular Church is 
affiliated with other Churches in one denomination implies transfer of 
and submission to authority. 

All the Churches of a Classis have submitted themselves to the just 
guidance and rule of the Classis. And all the Classes have submitted 
themselves to the just guidance and rule of the Synods. Let us not 
forget that denominational co-operation would be out of the question 
if classical and synodical gatherings were not vested with the author- 
ity attributed to them in Article 36. Ecclesiastical federation accord- 
ing to the Reformed conception simply implies authoritative rights 
on the jpart of major assemblies over minor assemblies. 

2. The nature of the authority which major assemblies have over 
minor assemblies. 

The authority which the government exercises over its subjects is 
juridical authority. The authority which the Reformed Churches have 
attributed to their major assemblies in relation to their minor assem- 
blies is not juridical, but moral and spiritual. In Dutch we distinguish 
in like manner between “rechterlijk gezag” and “zedelijk, geestelijk 
gezag.” 

According to Reformed church polity the authority of major as- 
semblies is: 


162 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


1. Derived, and not original. Consistories receive their authority 
directly from Christ the King of His Church. Classes and Synods 
receive their authority only by delegation. Consistories therefore ex- 
ercise original authority, but major assemblies have no other than 
derived authority; 

2. Limited, and not general. A Consistory exercises a general author- 
ity. It has authority to act on all matters pertaining to its congre- 
gation. But a Classis and Synod has authority to act only concerning 
matters that could not be finished at minor assemblies, or that pertain 
to the Churches in general (Art. 30). The authority of major as- 
semblies does not extend beyond the provisions of the Church Order 
and the instructions given it by the minor assemblies; 

3. Smaller in measure, and not higher in degree. One who is dele- 
gated will naturally have less authority than the delegating body. 
And essentially there is no ecclesiastical authority other than the 
authority vested in the office-bearers of the particular Churches; 

4. Ministering, and not compelling. A major assembly cannot force 
a minor assembly to accept and execute its decisions. A minor as- 
sembly, if it feels that a decision of a major assembly is unBiblical, 
should appeal to the next gathering of the assembly, or to the as- 
sembly next in order. In the meantime the appealing body should 
submit, unless it cannot do so because of great conscientious objec- 
tions before God. If the objections are not removed, and if the de- 
cision stands, then the brethren concerned should, if at all possible, 
submit if need be under continued protest and always with the clear 
understanding that the burdened parties have a full right to retain 
their own convictions. But if the brethren concerned feel fully per- 
suaded that they may not submit, even under conditions as just indi- 
cated, then the only other course open to them is withdrawal from 
the denomination. Needless to say, this is a very serious and extreme 
step, and should only be taken in case the matter is very urgent. 

5. Conditional, and not unconditional. The Word of God only is inde- 
pendent. Its deliverances and commandments are, from their very 
nature, unconditional. But all decisions of ecclesiastical gatherings 
are valid only if they agree with the Bible. 

These fundamental principles should never be lost out of sight. If 
the Church of Christ ever does lose sight of these all-important prin- 
ciples, she will suffer for it. And sometimes very severely. Consider 
the trials of Dr. J. G. Machen and others by the Presbyterian Church 
of the U. S. A. What a loss for that denomination! 

It is also well to remember what Dr. Bouwman tells us in his pre- 
viously quoted and very valuable work. Says he: “All ecclesiastical 
authority, given unto His Church by Christ, resides in the particular 
Church. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, given to the Apostles 
by Christ, and in them to the congregation were, when the Apostles 
passed from the scenes of life, exercised by the office-bearers who had 
been chosen under their guidance in the particular Churches. This 
ecclesiastical authority consists of three things: Authority to admin- 
ister the Word and the Sacraments; authority to elect ecclesiastical 
office-bearers; and authority to exercise ecclesiastical discipline. 
There is no other authority in the ecclesiastical sphere. And this 
three-fold authority does not pertain to the Major Assemblies, but 
to the office-bearers of the particular Churches.” 1 From the principle 
here enunciated it follows that major assemblies have no more au- 


1. Bouwman: Oeref. Kerkrecht, 1934, II, 21. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 163 

thority than that which the Churches have contributed to them by 
mutual agreement. 

3. The authority of major assemblies over minor assemblies differen- 
tiated from the authority of Consistories over congregations. 

There is a distinct difference between the authority of Major as- 
semblies over minor assemblies, and the authority of Consistories over 
congregations. For this reason Article 36 does not speak of this 
authority of Consistories over congregations. 

Voetius, Bouwman, and Jansen 1 all enumerate certain differences 
between consistorial authority and the authority of our major as- 
semblies. There is a difference (1) as to origin. Major assemblies 
have no other authority than that which they have derived from the 
Consistories. Consistories, however, exercise an authority given unto 
them directly by Christ. There is a difference (2) as to necessity. 
Major assemblies are necessary for the welfare or well-being of the 
Churches. Consistories are necessary for the being, the very existence 
of the Churches. There is a difference (3) as to essence. The author- 
ity of Classes and Synods is derived and accidental. The particular 
Church possesses original and essential authority. (Heat is essential 
to fire, but accidental to water heated by fire. — Jansen.) There is a 
difference (4) as to duration. The authority of Classes and Synods, 
from the nature of the case, would cease if the particular Churches 
constituting the denomination would cease. But though Classes and 
Synod should cease to function, yet the Churches could continue to 
exist. There is furthermore a difference (5) as to purpose. Consisto- 
ries have an independent existence and do not exist for the sake of 
the major assemblies. But the major assemblies do exist for the sake of 
the particular Churches, namely, to minister to their welfare with 
good advice and wise guidance. 


ARTICLE XXXVII. 

In all Churches there shall be a Consistory composed of the 
Ministers of the Word and the Elders , who at least in larger 
congregations , shall , as a rule , meet once a week. The Minister 
of the Word (or the Ministers , if there be more than one , in 
turn) shall preside and regulate the proceedings. Wherever 
the number of Elders is small , the Deacons may be added to the 
Consistory by local regulation; this shall invariably be the rule 
where the number is less than three. 

CONSISTORIES 

Articles 37 to 40 concern our Consistories. Article 29 enumerates 
four kinds of ecclesiastical assemblies. Of these four the Consistory 
is mentioned first of all, namely, in Article 37. Article 38 regulates 
the constitution of Consistories for the first time, i.e., in other words, 
the organization of new Churches. Article 39 tells us what is to be 
done for localities where there are believers, but where organization 
cannot as yet take place. And Article 40 regulates the matter of 
diaconal gatherings. 

1. Bouwman: Geref. Xerkrecht. 1934, II. 22; Voetius: Pol. EocL, I, 122; 
IV, 166, 226 (Cf. Bouwman, II, 22); Jansen, Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923, 
165, 166. 


164 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


1. A Consistory in every Church. 

Reformed Church polity holds that every Church must have its own 
Consistory. There are good reasons for this position. In the first 
place note that every Church is a complete unit in itself. Holy Writ, 
f.i., speaks concerning the Churches at Antioch, at Corinth, etc., as 
local and particular Churches, and acknowledges them to be complete 
units of the general Church of Christ (cf. Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2). We 
also find that every Church has its own office-bearers (cf. Acts. 14:23; 
Titus 1:5). These office-bearers are charged with the service of the 
Word and the Sacraments, with the maintenance of purity in doctrine 
and the exercise of discipline (cf. Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:2,3). More- 
over, the office-bearers form a body taking united action whenever 
necessary (Acts 15:6; 20:17; 21:17,18). Thus also I Tim. 4:14 speaks 
of “the presbytery,” definitely referring to a body of Elders it would 
seem. 

Denominational unity and confederation is certainly Biblical, and 
is based upon our essential unity in Christ and under Christ our great 
Prophet, only High Priest, and eternal King. And confederation of 
Churches certainly supports and promotes the welfare of the particu- 
lar Churches. But it should not be forgotten that even without this 
God-ordained confederacy a particular Church has all that is essential 
to a Church (offices, right and duty to preach the Word, administra- 
tion of the Sacraments, exercise of discipline). 

Calvin held that ultimately the government of the Church was 
vested in the congregation. 1 To the congregation of believers it is 
said: “But as ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, 
a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excel- 
lencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous 
light” (I Peter 2:9). This passage marks the believers as prophets, 
priests, and kings. Related to this principle stands the fact that in 
our Churches the congregation of believers always takes part in the 
appointment of men to office and in the exercise of discipline. The 
Consistories must always, according to the general rules of the Church 
Order, acknowledge and consult the congregation. But, as Dr. Bouw- 
man points out* 2 the members of the visible manifestation of the 
body of Christ, i.e., the members of each particular Church, exercise 
their rights and duties as an organism organically, through the offices. 
When a Church is to be organized the believers appoint certain 
brethren to office, under guidance of neighboring Churches if possible. 
However, as soon as the offices have been instituted, these offices 
begin to govern and guide the affairs of the Church. But this original 
authority, common to all believers, again begins to function directly 
and without the guidance and authority of these office-bearers, in case 
these office-bearers become unfaithful to their charge and refuse to 
amend their neglect and errors. Then, again with the assistance of 
neighboring Churches if possible, the believers as such are called 
upon to exercise their prerogatives under Christ their absolute 
Sovereign. 

As Voetius states, the Consistory is the organ through which the 
Church functions, even as the eye is the organ through which the 
body sees. 3 


1. cf. Calvin, Institutes, IV, 1. 

2. Bouwman, G-ereformeerde Xerkrecht, 1934, II, 102. 

3. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. 4:893, quoted by Bouwman, Geref. Xerkrecht, 1934, 

lit lU6. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


165 


2. Members of the Consistory. 

Article 37 clearly specifies that Consistories shall be composed of 
Ministers and Elders. This is as might be expected. In I Tim. 4:14, 
for instance, the term presbytery refers to a body of Elders. In the 
following chapter (I Tim. 5:17) these officers are spoken of in a two- 
fold sense. They are referred to as teaching Elders and ruling Elders. 
It should also be noted that the term Consistory, as used in the 
Church Order, uniformly signifies the body of Ministers and Elders. 
This is especially clear from Articles 4, 5, 10, etc., in which articles 
the Consistory is distinguished from the body of Deacons. 

The first regular Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, 
Emden 1571, declared that in each Church there should be “gatherings 
or Consistories of Ministers of the Word, Elders, and Deacons” (Em- 
den 1571, Art. 6). There seems to have been some difference of 
opinion regarding this 6th article of Emden. The question seemingly 
arose whether the Synod had meant that all these three offices must 
meet in one gathering, or whether the Deacons might, or perhaps 
should, constitute a separate gathering. In most of the Churches the 
Elders and Deacons met separately.* In some Churches the Deacons 
were definitely not admitted to the Consistory. In still other Churches 
the Deacons refused to meet with the Consistory. So three years later 
the Synod of Dort, 1574, being questioned in regard to this matter, 
declared: “In explanation of Article 6 of Emden, providing that in 
every Church there shall be gatherings of Ministers of the Word, 
Elders, and Deacons the brethren understand: That the Ministers and 
Elders shall meet by themselves, and the Deacons by themselves, so 
that each may transact their own affairs. But in places where there 
are few Elders, the Deacons shall be permitted to be a part of the 
Consistory, and having been called into the Consistory, they shall be 
obliged to come” (Art. 4, Dort, 1574). 

This explanatory decision of 1574 has been maintained ever since 
and finds its reflection in Article 37 of our Church Order and in other 
articles as well. But our mother Churches in the Netherlands decided 
in 1905 that Deacons must be reckoned with the Consistory if the 
number of Elders is less than three. This slight revision, a measure 
of wisdom and safety, was also incorporated in our redaction of the 
Church Order in 1914. 

Our Church Order therefore clearly stipulates that regularly the 
Ministers and Elders constitute the Consistory, but that in small 
Churches the Deacons may be added to the Consistory, and that these 
must be added in case there are less than three Elders. 

Now, in Article 30 of the Confession our Churches declare that: 
“. . . there must be Ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God 
and to administer the Sacraments; also Elders and Deacons who, to- 
gether with the pastors, form the council of the Church. . .” Some 
have concluded that there is a conflict between our Confession and 
our Church Order on this score. But let it be noted that in Article 30 
of the Confession we declare by whom the Churches ought to be gov- 
erned, and that in the Church Order we stipulate how the work of 
the office-bearers is to be executed. Or again: In the Confession we 
have the declaration of a fundamental principle. In the Church Order 
the statement regarding a method of work. The Confession, as 
might be expected, commits itself regarding a fundamental principle, 
and the Church Order, without denying this fundamental principle. 


• Cf. Bouwman, Oeref. Xerkrocht, 1934, II. 113, 114. 


166 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


provides for a limited measure of division of labor in keeping with 
the peculiar duties of the offices. 

Inasmuch as this is a point of importance, and inasmuch as there 
has been a measure of confusion and misunderstanding in our circles 
regarding these matters, it may be well for us to state the whole 
situation in a summary way. First of all then, the three offices of 
the N. T. Church are derived from Christ’s threefold office and 
correspond to these. The threefold office of Christ was vested in the 
Apostles temporarily. In due time Ministers, Elders, and Deacons 
continued the work of the Apostles, that is to say, the abiding ele- 
ments of their office. The Ministers of the Gospel (or teaching Elders) 
represent Christ as Prophet of truth; the Elders (or ruling Elders) 
represent Christ as King of righteousness; and the Deacons represent 
Christ as Priest of mercy. Each office has its distinct task, though 
the offices are more or less inter-related and they have their unity in 
Christ. 

Whenever necessary these three types of office-bearers may work 
together in governing the Churches and in caring for the poor. Elders 
then act as assistant Deacons and Deacons as assistant Elders. Thus 
it must be done in very small congregations, numbering less than 
three Elders. 

This special arrangement of full cooperation of all the offices is 
altogether permissible in view of the essential unity of the office in 
Christ. Ordinarily, however, for reasons of expediency and in keep- 
ing with their own special work, the Ministers and Elders meet to 
govern the Church as its Consistory, and the Deacons meet as its 
Diaconate for the work of mercy. However, in matters of appoint- 
ment to office (Articles 4, 5, 22) or release from office (Article 10) 
and the exercise of supervision over each other as office-bearers (Art. 
81), all three offices must cooperate and work as one body, even in 
the largest Churches. 

The division of labor provisions of the Church Order, i.e., the pro- 
vision that the Elders hold their separate meetings and the Deacons 
theirs, this provision is therefore both restricted and conditional. 

From the foregoing it will be clear that when the Deacons are part 
of the Consistory they should be considered to be full-fledged Con- 
sistory members. They have a voice and vote in all matters which 
pertain to the government of the Church, even as the Elders under 
these circumstances have a voice and vote in all matters regarding 
the Church’s work of mercy. To deny the Deacons a right to vote in 
cases of discipline, for instance, would be contrary to the Church 
Order and the duties which have been imposed on them by local ar- 
rangement. However, when matters pertaining to the government of 
the Church are being considered the Deacons should certainly bear in 
mind that governmental matters belong first of all to the domain of 
the Elders. Thus it might happen regarding a disciplinary matter 
that a Consistory consisting of four Elders and four Deacons would 
vote to bar a certain member from the Sacraments with a vote of 
five to three, four Deacons and one Elder favoring the step, but all 
the Elders except one being against it. A situation like this certainly 
would be very abnormal, though technically in order. In cases akin 
to the hypothetical illustration the Consistory would do best to post- 
pone action until a greater measure of agreement could be reached, 
or until at least the majority of the Elders feel that the step men- 
tioned is necessary. So also the Elders should be very slow to outvote 
the Deacons in diaconal affairs. The Deacons should also give first 
opportunity to the Elders to speak on governmental questions and 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


167 


the Elders should, as a matter of common sense and courtesy, allow 
the Deacons to voice their opinions before committing themselves re- 
garding any matter which concerns the administration of Christian 
mercy. 

In this connection we would refer to a report drafted by a com- 
mittee which reported to the Synod of 1938, on the position of our 
Deacons in the Consistory. (Cf. Agenda, 1938, II, pp. 91-99.) We 
also quote the decision of Synod in regard to this question: 

“In view of the fact that the basic problem in regard to the status 
of Deacons in the Consistory hinges on the interpretation of the 
phrase, ‘added to the Consistory’ in Art. 37 of the Church Order, Synod 
declares that: 

1. The phrase, ‘added to the Consistory,’ can mean only that the 
Deacons become members of the Consistory, and as such they are 
warranted in performing presbyterial functions including the right 
to vote in matters of Church government. 

2. This concession by our Church Order, namely, that Deacons may 
function as Elders, is made to avoid the unReformed practice of oli- 
garchic rule which would be the only alternative. 

3. It ought, however, to be added that such deacons, in matters of 
Church government, should naturally give due consideration to the 
judgment of the elders. Adopted.” (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1938, Art. 96, 

p. 81.) 

3. When separate meetings for Elders and Deacons are held, how 
should the work be divided? 

Churches which maintain separate meetings for Elders and Deacons 
have, as is to be understood, three types of gatherings. First of all 
there will be regular Consistory meetings consisting of Ministers and 
Elders. Then, they will also have regular Deacons’ meetings. And 
in the third place, according to the requirement of the Church Order 
for all Churches, there will be meetings of all office-bearers together 
— Ministers, Elders, and Deacons. 

In the Netherlands our brethren in the faith often speak of the 
“breede kerkeraad,” which term indicates the general meeting of all 
the office-bearers. The “smalle kerkeraad” indicates the gathering of 
Ministers and Elders. And the “diaconale vergadering” is the term 
used to designate the gathering of the Deacons. With us these various 
gatherings are sometimes designated as Council Meetings, Consistory 
Meetings, and Deacons’ Meetings. Other possible designations would 
be: the General Consistory, the Restricted Consistory, and the Diacon- 
ate. The term “Deaconate,” in spite of the fact that it is less cumber- 
some and that many in our circles use it regularly, is not good Eng- 
lish. Diaconate is. Deaconry would also be good English. 

Jansen enumerates rather fully the matters which are usually acted 
upon at the meetings of General Consistories in the Netherlands.* 

They are as follows: 

1. All matters pertaining to the election of office-bearers: Nominations: 
final decision whether or not one chosen shall be called: consideration of 
objections registered; releasing one from his call to office, etc. (Cf. Ch. 
O., Art. 4, 5. 22, 24, etc.) 

2. The issuing and receiving of certificates of Ministers arriving or de- 
parting. (Ch. O. Art. 5 and 10.) 

3. Provisional consideration of and decision regarding emeritation. (Ch. 
O., Art. 13.) 

4. Mutual Censure. (Ch. O., Art. 81.) 


* Jansen, Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923, pp. 170, 171. 


168 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


5. Church Visitation. (Ch. O., Art. 44.) 

6. Administration of finances (Ch. O., Art. 11); appointing and instruct- 
ing Building and Grounds Committees; regulating the various collections 
and distribution of funds collected; determining the amount of salaries to 
be paid. 

7. The general administration of benevolence matters; Regulating the 
matter of poor fund collections; extension of advice to the Deacons; ap- 
proval of diaconal activities regarding help extended, etc. (Ch. O., Art. 
26, 26.) 

8. General business administration of the material interests of the 
Church, including the erection of buildings for congregational purposes, 
for the poor, etc. 

9. Consideration of general correspondence. (Correspondence regarding 
more spiritual matters concerns the Restricted Consistory, and that re- 
garding the care for the poor concerns the Diaconate.) 

The same author attributes the following activities to the Restricted 
Consistory meetings: 

1. Regulating the services of the Word and catechism instruction. 

2. The exercise of discipline. 

3. The matter of home-visitation work. 

4. Admission to the sacraments. 

5. Consideration of all correspondence which concerns the Elders par- 
ticularly. 

Bouwman rightly adds to these: Delegation of representatives to 
major assemblies. 

Regarding the activities which Jansen assigns to the General Con- 
sistories, Bouwman is not nearly as elaborate but both authorities are 
in substantial agreement. 1 

How large should Consistories be before division of labor can be 
introduced with profit? No one should attempt to lay down an abso- 
lute rule regarding this matter. Separate meetings should not be in- 
troduced too early, but neither should they be postponed unduly. There 
are reasons to believe that a number of our Churches which have 
failed to do so until now, could do so with profit. Division of labor, 
where it is possible, makes for specialization and concentration. Dr. 
F. L. Rutgers suggests that Consistories of six Elders and more 
should consider the desirability of introducing separate gatherings, 2 

4. How often should Consistories meet, and who should act 
as president? 

Originally the Consistories would meet once a week. This was in 
accord with the stipulations made in the first Synod (Emden, 1571). 
However, it soon became apparent that especially in smaller Churches 
it was not necessary that Consistories should meet every week. The 
Netherland Churches, in their redaction of 1905, made this provision 
less binding by providing that Consistories in “larger Churches” 
should “as a rule” meet once a week. We followed this example in 
1914. In practice Consistories meet monthly or bi-weekly, depending 
upon the size of the Church and the amount of work constantly re- 
quiring attention. 

In those of our Churches which maintain division of labor for their 
office-bearers it will doubtlessly be found expedient in most cases to 
have the General Consistory meet once a month and the Restricted 
Consistory likewise. The Deacons should meet bi-weekly or monthly, 
or as often as their work may demand. 

Who calls the Consistory meetings together? The next president. 
In Churches with only one Minister it will always be the same brother, 


1. Bouwman, G-ereformeerd Xerkrecht, II, 1934, pp. 117, 118. 

2. Rutgers, Xerkelijke Adviezen I, 1921, p. 282. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


169 


but in Churches with more than one Minister these serve in turn. 
Art. 37 provides that the Ministers preside in turn in order to counter- 
act the danger of inequality and hierarchism in those Churches which 
have more than one Minister. The presidency at Consistory meetings 
the Church Order attributes to the Ministers and not to the Elders. 
This is done not because the office of Elders is inferior, but because 
as a rule the Ministers are better qualified by reason of their special 
training and more extended experience. 

The presidents are to regulate the proceedings. The gatherings 
consider and act. The president merely presides and regulates as a 
brother amongst brethren. 

The next president also has the right to call a special meeting of 
the Consistory. But no special meeting can take valid action, as 
stands to reason, unless all the members have been properly notified. 

How many members must be present in order to render consistorial 
action valid? At least a majority. If a majority is not present it is 
better to postpone the meeting. If again a majority fails to come, 
though all have been notified, and the meeting has not been called 
at an hour or place at which the majority could not possibly come, 
(say 9 a. m., when nearly all must be at work) then the meeting 
should proceed, and can do so validly. 

5. The Consistory meetings and the congregation. 

First of all, Consistory meetings are, as is proper, private. Some 
have contended that the members of the Church should be admitted. 
An appeal has been made to the case of Acts 15. But it should be 
remembered that the gathering of Acts 15 partakes far more of the 
nature of a major gathering than of a Consistory meeting. Further- 
more the matter up for consideration at this meeting was not of local 
interest but very definitely of general interest, i.e., the question of 
circumcision for converts from paganism. 

It certainly is to the best interest of the Churches that Consistory 
meetings are private. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten 
that every member has a full right to present himself at the Con- 
sistory meetings to give or to gain information, or to present a re- 
quest, grievance, appeal, or protest. 

Furthermore our Consistories should do their utmost to keep the 
congregation well informed as to those activities which it is entitled 
to know. Consistories should avoid giving the impression that they 
are independent bodies, ruling and acting with superior power. Since 
Consistories are the God ordained organs of the Church there should 
be a close contact between Consistory and congregation. 

What is the nature of congregational meetings? Our Church Order 
knows of only three types of ecclesiastical gatherings, namely, Con- 
sistories, Classes, and Synods. Our so-called congregational meetings 
are really Consistory meetings to which all male members in full and 
regular standing have been invited, in order that certain definite 
matters may be considered under the direction of the Consistories. 
They are really deliberative gatherings, called together by the Con- 
sistory, at which the Consistory seeks to gain the opinion of the con- 
gregation. At these meetings office-bearers are also designated. But 
all action taken at these meetings becomes valid only after the Con- 
sistory as such has given its decision or approval. Usually this ap- 
proval is assumed. That is to say, if no objections are raised against 
the opinions voiced at the congregational meetings, the Consistory 
acts forthwith in accord with the expression of opinion registered on 
the part of the congregation. 


170 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


When we say that consistorial action is needed to make decisions 
made at congregational meetings valid we do not mean to say that 
Consistories may act arbitrarily. Not in the least. Consistories are 
bound to abide by certain expressions of opinion made at these con- 
gregational gatherings, unless they are prevented by the Word of God 
or circumstances. But this is the point, the Consistories are the re- 
sponsible agencies of God to rule the Churches aright. If the office- 
bearers therefore clearly see that a congregation has made a mistake 
in its expression of opinion then they must refrain from acting in 
harmony with such an opinion expressed, and if need be, consult the 
Church anew, explaining the difficulties. 

Should all Consistory meetings be announced to the Church? Yes, 
all regular meetings of office-bearers, whether of the General Consis- 
tory, the Restricted Consistory, or of the Diaconate, should be an- 
nounced, in order that those who wish to appear before the gathering 
may know when the meeting is to be held. Special meetings called 
for the consideration of special or unfinished business as a rule do not 
need to be announced. 


ARTICLE XXXVIII. 

In places where the Consistory is to be constituted for the 
first time or anew, this shall not take place except with the 
advice of the Classis. 

NEW CHURCHES AND ADVICE OF CLASSIS 

1. Significance of the term used to indicate the organization 
of new Churches. 

This article clearly refers to the matter of Church organization. 
Yet the expression, “organization of new Churches,” does not occur. 
How is this to be explained? To the institute or organized Churches 
the administration of Word and Sacraments has been entrusted. This 
significant task has not been committed by God to unorganized groups 
of believers. Nor has it been left to the initiative of individual be- 
lievers. Not as if the believers have no rights and duties regarding 
the Gospel of salvation. We should all be witnesses and spokesmen of 
God. We should all permit the light of God, graciously given unto us, 
to shine. But the administration of the Word in its official sense and 
the administration of the Sacraments pertain only to the organized 
and authorized Church of God. This authorized Church has the charge 
to go with divine authority proclaiming the Word and Will of God, 
and to signify and to seal the same by means of the Sacraments. And 
the Church must discharge itself of this beautiful and important task 
through the duly appointed office-bearers. Likewise, the Churches 
govern themselves, under Christ, through the offices, and engage in 
the work of Christian mercy through the offices. 

Consequently the organized Church functions through the offices and 
does not even exist without the offices. Hence it follows that only 
when the offices have been instituted can it be said that the Church 
of Christ has acquired a definite and authoritative form. Wherever 
the offices have been instituted there the Church has been organized. 

The organization of Churches is therefore indicated in Article 38 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


171 


accoixling to its essential and indispensable characteristic. And the 
terminology used in Article 38 stresses this important and essential 
character of the offices for the organized Church of Christ on earth. 

2. Why the phrasei, “for the first time or anew”? 

At the time when this article was originally drafted the Churches 
of Holland were still suffering by reason of the Spanish persecution. 
Sometimes Churches were badly shattered, inasmuch as their members 
had to flee for their lives. Many sought temporary refuge in England 
and Germany. Consequently many Churches were nearly or entirely 
disorganized. Now as the persecutor was driven from certain locali- 
ties before the armies of William of Orange or his associates, the 
refugees of these sections would return to their homes. As stands to 
reason, these returned refugees soon sought to restore their broken 
Churches. But now it was agreed that these former Churches should 
not be reorganized unless Classis had first declared itself in favor of 
this move. Without the advice of Classis the offices should not be re- 
instituted. 

Why this provision? Seemingly the Churches deemed it unwise and 
harmful to act prematurely in the matter of reorganizing a Church. 
Organizing a Church is always an important step. For a Church is 
far more than an ordinary man-made society. Consequently, the num- 
bers of those desiring a Church should be sufficient, and there must 
be a reasonable assurance that the proposed Church will continue to 
exist. 

But the provision also covers localities which had never yet had a 
Church. This element of the phrase under consideration was added in 
Holland in 1905, and by us in 1914. Perhaps it should be assumed that 
it was always understood that if the organization of a Church was 
desired in a locality which had never yet had one of our Churches, 
then the same rule would hold which had been agreed upon for the 
reestablishment of a Church. For surely if no Church ought to be re- 
established without the advice of all the neighboring Churches, 
through Classis, then it stands to reason that no new Church ought 
to be established by a group of believers without such approval and 
advice. 

But in 1914 this stipulation has been included in our Church Order 
as we have just noted. Because of entirely changed circumstances a 
Church once disbanded, perhaps by reason of group removals to other 
sections, is seldom reorganized. On the other hand. Churches are or- 
ganized repeatedly in new localities. Therefore the renderings of 1905 
and 1914 are entirely to the point. 

3. Significance of the advice of Classis. 

Essentially any group of believers has a right to organize itself 
into a Church. For instance, if a group of believers, by extraordinary 
circumstances, should find itself isolated from the rest of the world, 
say on a distant island, would not this group have the God-given 
right to organize itself into a Church through the election of office- 
bearers, etc.? Would anyone care to maintain that the resultant 
Church was really non-existent simply because no major ecclesiastical 
assembly had sponsored, effected, or advised its organization? Only 
he who belongs to a strict hierarchical Church organization would 
care to champion the suggested contention. By this admission we 
grant that believers have an essential right to organize themselves 
into a Church if they so desire. 

The Classical decisions regarding the organization of particular 


172 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Churches are therefore not necessary for the very existence of our 
Churches. Why then does the Church Order prescribe classical ad- 
vice? As a matter of good policy; as a matter of common consent 
and wisdom, and not as a matter of superior authority without which 
no Church can be organized. The advice of Classis for the institution 
of the offices in a new locality, so it has been expressed by more than 
one authority in Reformed Church government in Holland, is neces- 
sary, not for the “being” of the Church, but for its “well-being.” 

The advice referred to in the present phrase has the significance cf 
judgment, counsel, or help. If Classis decides against the organiza- 
tion in question, then the matter must wait. The petitioning group 
cannot proceed without, i.eL, against, the advice of Classis. If they 
should proceed, they would simply not be recognized as one of our 
Churches but as an independent and perhaps schismatic Church. 

It may be said in this connection that Article 38 does not mean to 
imply that our Classes should sit and wait until petitioners come to 
ask the advice and assistance of Classis for organization. Every 
Classis should be active and eager to organize new Churches wherever 
groups of believers belonging to our Churches, or desiring to join us, 
are found to be in need of a Church of their own. 

A Classis can never decide to organize a Church without a request 
to do so from the brothers and sisters concerned. Reformed church 
polity seeks to do full justice to the rights of every believer under 
Christ. But a Classis should encourage the individual believers in a 
certain locality to take the necessary steps for church organization. 
Church extension and home mission work is very necessary and of 
great blessing to many. 

If a Church cannot be regularly and validly organized without the 
advice of Classis, then it follows that no Church ought to be disbanded 
without the advice of Classis. If ever a Church dwindles away untij 
but a few members are left so that the Church cannot well continue 
to exist, then this remnant should become a branch of a neighboring 
Christian Reformed Church. And the Consistory of this neighboring 
Church should govern the affairs of this group as well as it may. In 
case all members leave the community, the property which the Church 
concerned may have attained should fall to Classis for disposal. 
Minute books etc., should be turned over to Classis also. 

4. Sundry matters. 

How many members are required for the organization of a new 
Church? Our Church Order does not stipulate this. In Holland the 
mission deputies have a rule that no new Church shall be organized 
in Java unless there are at least twelve brethren which desire the 
Church. Jansen feels that a new Church should begin with at least 
20 or 25 families. But neither with us, nor in the Netherlands, have 
the Churches ever set a definite figure. And wisely so. Circumstances 
alter cases. When prospects for growth and continuance are favor- 
able a very small number of families and individuals are warranted 
to organize themselves into a separate Church. Some of our biggest 
and most flourishing Churches began with ten families or less. But 
let every Classis judge soberly and with caution before it advises a 
petitioning group to organize. 

What is the minimum number of Consistory-members for small 
Churches? It is generally judged that three should be the minimum; 
for example, two Elders and one Deacon; or one Minister, one Elder, 
and one Deacon. 

What is the mode of procedure which should be followed in the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


173 


organization of a new Church ? All professing Christians of Reformed 
persuasion who desire a Christian Reformed Church in a new locality 
and intend to join this proposed new Church, sign a petition addressed 
to Classis requesting the approval and assistance of Classis. If the 
Classis, upon due consideration, acts favorably upon the request, it 
appoints a neighboring Consistory to help the brethren and sisters in 
the organization. Classis should consider whether the interested group 
is large enough to be organized, whether there is a sufficient number 
of brethren able to serve in the Consistory, and kindred questions. 

The Consistory appointed by Classis arranges for a service of wor- 
ship, after which the committee of the Consistory appointed requests 
those who desire to join the new Church to present their certificates 
of membership. All acceptable certificates are acknowledged as such 
by the meeting, upon recommendation of the committee of the Con- 
sistory in charge of the organization. All confessing male members 
are given the right to vote. Those that have never yet made confes- 
sion of faith may submit themselves for examination and may be 
received instantly if the results of the examination be satisfactory, 
and if their testimonials, in as far as these are available, are satis- 
factory. Then the number of Elders and Deacons to be chosen is de- 
termined. Balloting follows. Those chosen are instantly installed. If 
possible, the matter of legal incorporation should be attended to at 
this meeting also. 

Sometimes Classes merely appoint committees which are charged 
to effect the organization in name of Classis. It is better to do 
through Consistories whatever can conveniently be done through 
these governing bodies than through committees. Furthermore, it is 
well to note that the task of a Consistory designated by a Classis to 
help in the organization of a Church is merely to act as an authorized 
advisor and guide. The group organizes itself into a Church. 

What do we understand by combined Churches? Sometimes two or 
more neighboring Churches find that they are too small and too weak 
to support a Minister. If then such neighboring Churches make an 
agreement providing that they are to call a Minister together, these 
Churches so co-operating are often termed combined Churches. They 
remain independent one of another, but at times the Churches may 
meet as one Congregation for the consideration of their mutual affairs. 
And sometimes two or more Consistories of combined Churches may 
meet as one Consistory for the same purpose. Whenever Churches 
thus combine their strength and efforts they should be careful to draw 
up a good set of rules by which all parties concerned will be guided. 
If this should be neglected disharmony and friction easily result. 


ARTICLE XXXIX. 

Places where as yet no Consistory can he constituted shall 
be placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory. 

PLACES WITHOUT ORGANIZED CHURCHES 

This article, as nearly all the rulings and agreements of our Church 
Order, dates back to the 16th century, the time of the great Reforma- 
tion. The question constantly confronting the Churches already or- 
ganized in those days was this: What should we do for those localities 


174 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


which have no Reformed Churches as yet? Calvin had urged not to 
institute the administration of Word and Sacraments without the in- 
stitution of the offices. He was persuaded that in order to maintain 
the purity of the preaching of the Word and the administration of 
the Sacraments, proper supervision and control was necessary. For 
this reason the institution of the offices or the organization of 
Churches should not be neglected. Believers having been converted 
from the errors of Rome and having broken with Rome certainly 
might gather for mutual edification, but they should not initiate the 
administration of Word and Sacraments unless they had first insti- 
tuted the offices. 

1. How did the Churches formerly proceed regarding localities with- 
out organized Churches? 

The very first Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland which 
met in Ernden, Germany, in 1571, already considered the need of lo- 
calities without organized Churches. In the 42nd article of its deci- 
sions this Synod stipulated that Ministers and Elders of Classes “bear- 
ing the cross,” i.e., being persecuted, should diligently ascertain 
whether or not there were any in their near-by cities or villages who 
were favorably inclined toward the Reformation, and urge such to do 
their duty. To this end the Minister and Elders of these Classes 
should attempt to organize Churches, or at least the beginnings of 
Churches. In order to carry on this work the Classes were to divide 
the various cities and villages amongst themselves so that no localities 
might be neglected. And the dispersed Churches, Churches consisting 
of believers who had fled to distant parts for their safety, should also 
be active in their new localities it was urged. Dispersed believers 
should further the work of the Consistories active in the gathering 
of Churches by cautiously supplying the Church officers with names 
of persons who had in the past manifested their interest in the true 
religion in their home community from which they had been driven, 
or in the place to which they had fled. 

Again we read in the Acts of Synod, 1578, Art. 11, that to localities 
in which a Church should be gathered and organized a Minister should 
be sent who should use some of the most God-fearing men of such 
localities to help him in the government of the Church and the care 
of the poor; further, he should urge his listeners to confess their 
faith and come to Holy Communion. And when the Congregation had 
increased somewhat. Elders and Deacons should be selected according 
to the accepted Order out of those who had come to communion. This 
method of procedure was confirmed in 1581. In response to the 10th 
question considered by this Synod it was decided that a Minister sent 
out to gather Churches should, beginning the work of organization 
provisionally, appoint some of the most God-fearing brethren as 
Elders and Deacons by whose help he should administer the Lord’s 
Supper. 

By 1580 the work of reformation and Church organization had 
progressed greatly. The Synod of that year decided that in localities 
^hich had no Consistories as yet the Classis should do that which the 
Church Order assigned under normal circumstances to the Consisto- 
ries. Neighboring Churches, through their classical organization, 
were therefore to minister to the spiritual needs of those living in 
communities not yet having a Church. They were to do this particu- 
larly, we may assume, by sending a Minister who could sponsor the 
organization of Churches, even as former Synods had urged and de- 
cided. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


175 


The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, confirmed this decision of 1586 
and it became the 39th article of the Church Order. And thus the 
article remained until it was slightly altered in 1905 in the Nether- 
lands and by us in 1914. Our redaction of 1914 is identical to that of 
the Netherlands of 1905, except that the Holland article retained the 
words “door de Classe.” Their 39th article therefore reads: “Locali- 
ties, where as yet no Consistory can be constituted shall by Chassis 
be placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory.” In our redac- 
tion the fact that Classis places localities in need of a Church under 
the care of a Consistory is understood, though not specifically men- 
tioned. 

It is better for a Classis to assign work of this type to a Consistory 
than to a committee. Whatever can be done through the regular as- 
semblies (Consistories, Classes, Synods), in the interest of good order 
and safety, should not be assigned to boards and committees. Our 
method of appointing a committee when a Consistory could be ap- 
pointed just as well tends to place too much power in the hands of 
individuals, while the regular offices are neglected. It also tends to 
sponsor what has been termed “dominocracy” (rule by Ministers, to 
the exclusion of Elders) inasmuch as committees are as a rule largely 
composed of Ministers. 

The revision of 1905 and 1914, it may be noted, are in full harmony 
with what the earliest Synods decided on this score. It is also true 
that Ministers, Elders, and Deacons are always such of particular 
Churches, never in the abstract or of the Churches in general. And 
in harmony with this the administration of Word and Sacraments are 
prerogatives of the particular Churches and not of the major assem- 
blies. These principles of Reformed church polity find expression in 
several articles of our Church Order. 

2. What is the significance of Article 39? 

Article 39 stipulates that localities not having a Church shall be 
placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory. By whom? As 
has been noted, by the Classis. Classis regulates this all-important 
work. This is as it should be. Without proper organization certain 
fields may be neglected, and others might be worked by more than 
one Consistory. But by cooperative action through Classis groups of 
neighboring Churches divide the various fields amongst themselves. 
At times it may also be expedient for all the Churches of a Classis 
to sponsor home mission or Church extension work in unison. Of 
course, we should not forget in this connection that Classical Mis- 
sionaries, as well as all other Ministers, must be called according to 
the principle embodied in the Church Order, particularly in Articles 
4 and 5. The calling Church in such cases acts as the authorized 
agent of all the Churches concerned, under certain definite stipulations. 

It may be noted in this connection that the Home Mission Order, 
accepted by our Synod of 1936, which makes Home Missions and 
Church Extension work synodical, also provides that missionaries 
shall be called, charged by and officially connected with a particular 
Church. , _ 

It should not be inferred from this article that Classes may begin 
the work of Church organization or evangelization within the terri- 
torial bounds of one of our Churches without the approval of the 
Church concerned. Major assemblies may never infringe upon the 
rights of the particular Churches. 

What is included under the care which a neighboring Consistory is 
to exercise over localities referred to in Article 39? It includes the 


176 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


fullest spiritual care which circumstances permit a Consistory to give. 
If possible, gatherings should be sponsored at which the Word is 
preached and the Sacraments administered to those who are entitled 
to this privilege. As a rule believers who live under the care of a 
neighboring Church will become members of that Church, and the 
Consistory will keep a separate record of these members. It may be 
necessary that the Consistory institute “reading services,” i.e., that 
the Consistory appoint one of its Elders or members, or one of the 
group concerned, to read a sermon at stated hours on the Lord’s Day. 
Catechism and Sunday School classes may have to be organized and 
suitable teachers appointed. Home Visitation work should be con- 
ducted periodically and faithfully. For those that are not in any way 
connected with our Churches and not connected with another orthodox 
Church in the community, special canvasses should be conducted, 
especially if the field is not under the care of a regular Home Mis- 
sionary. As soon as the proper time has come the Consistory should 
urge all the believers concerned to petition Classis to aid them in 
organizing themselves into a Church. 

Very often we sit and wait until our help is requested by a district 
without one of our Churches. This, however, is not as it should be. 
Our Classes particularly should constantly be on the look-out for new 
openings and for needy fields. 

The matter of evangelization is certainly very urgent. Thousands 
upon thousand's have wandered away from the truth of God through 
shallow preaching and the preaching of man’s conceptions. Modernism 
is slaying its thousands annually. Worldly-mindedness, godless in- 
struction, Sabbath desecration, and other forces are fast increasing 
the de-Christianized masses. In view of this there are fields a plenty 
for our Churches. Let us appreciate the measure of loyalty and ac- 
tivity which is ours, but let us also press on to greater accomplish- 
ments. There is a crying need for true, Biblical, Reformed preaching 
and teaching. Let all our Churches be active and eager to work. 


ARTICLE XL. 

The Deacons shall meet, wherever necessary, every 
week to transact the business pertaining to their office, calling 
upon the Name of God; whereunto the Ministers shall take good 
heed and, if necessary, they shall be present. 

MEETINGS OF THE DEACONS 

The three previous articles concern our Consistories. Article 37 
regulates matters directly consistorial. Article 38 concerns the for- 
mation of new Consistories. And Article 39 makes provision for lo- 
calities which as yet have no Consistories. And now Article 40, as a 
matter closely related to the foregoing, provides for diaconal meet- 
ings. 

Diaconal meetings are not mentioned in Article 29, which article 
stipulates which four ecclesiastical gatherings shall be maintained. 
The Synod of Emden, 1571, had ruled that the Deacons were Con- 
sistory members. But the Synod of Dort, 1574, declared that the 
Deacons should meet weekly in order to consider the affairs of their 
office fully. The Synod of 1586 added to the stipulation of 1574 that 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


177 


at these meetings they should call “upon the Name of God”, and the 
Ministers should exercise due supervision over these meetings, and if 
necessary be present at these gatherings. The Synod of 1905, Hol- 
land, as well as our Synod of 1914 revised the article so that the 
Deacons must meet weekly “wherever necessary.” Heretofore the 
article prescribed weekly meetings without exception. 

1. In which Churches and how often Diaconal meetings should 
be held. 

Should the Deacons hold separate meetings even in Churches in 
which the Deacons constantly meet with the Consistory? No. In 
Churches which have not yet introduced separate meetings for the 
Elders and for the Deacons the latter need not hold special meetings 
for Deacons alone. In these Churches, which are not operating ac- 
cording to the division of labor plan of the Church Order, see espe- 
cially Art. 37, the work of mercy is regularly acted upon at the gen- 
eral Consistory meetings. Article 40 is intended for the larger 
Churches which have their general Consistory meetings and their Re- 
stricted Consistory meetings and consequently also need their Dia- 
conal meetings. 

The article stipulates that the Deacons should hold meetings. 
They should not merely confer informally as occasion may demand, 
say after the service on Sunday, but at regular hours, previously de- 
termined and announced to the Church. And at least in our larger 
Churches the Deacons should conduct their affairs according to an 
adopted order. Rules for Diaconal meetings should stipulate matters 
as follow: Time and place of meeting; Order of business; Election 
and duties of president, secretary, etc.; Duties and authority of com- 
mittees; How funds are to be collected, etc. Needless to say a set of 
rules as here suggested should be approved by the General Consistory. 

How ofteri should the Deacons meet? As noted above, the old 
Orders specified “every week”. Our present reading, however, says 
that the Deacons shall meet every week “whenever necessary.” In 
our larger Churches Deacons may certainly find it necessary to meet 
every week regularly. In smaller Churches bi-weekly or monthly 
meetings may be sufficient. But haphazardness should not prevail. 
Meetings should be held at set times. If the practical work of the 
Deacon’s office does not seem to require a Deacons’ meeting at any 
time, then let the brethren devote some time to the consideration of 
the spiritual side of the work. Special meetings should be called when 
emergencies arise. , 

2. Matters to be acted upon at these meetings. 

The article clearly states that the Deacons are to meet in order 
“to transact the business pertaining to their office.” They should not 
discuss doctrinal questions pertaining to all the offices, or to consider 
Church governmental matters. They should also be very careful not 
to assume an attitude of parity with the Consistory, and far less 
should the Deacons at their meetings plan or plot against the Con- 
sistory. Things belonging to the domain of the General Consistory 
should not be discussed and considered at the meetings of the Elders 
(Restricted Consistory), nor at the meetings of the Deacons (Dia- 
conal meetings). Nor should the Deacons attempt to solve the prob- 
lems of our social ills at their meetings, though they should permit 
the light of God’s Word to shine upon these problems. It is the duty 
and glorious privilege of our Deacons to dispense mercy in the Name 
of Christ. First of all to Christ’s own and then also toward those 


178 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


that are without. This is “the business that pertains to their office.” 
And to this their work at Diaconal meetings should be limited. 

From the foregoing it also follows that the Deacons should not 
transact the financial affairs of the Church. In some of our Churches 
the Deacons have been made to function as a financial committee and 
little more. If one of the Deacons happens to be a good bookkeeper 
whom the Consistory would like to make budget treasurer, there can 
be nothing against his appointment, but he cannot be charged with 
this extra work in his capacity of Deacon. In many Churches the Con- 
sistories nrfight well appoint financial committees from the member- 
ship of the Church, preferably choosing such men as are not burdened 
with other important duties. In some instances financial committees 
should be appointed so as to consist in part of office-bearers and in 
part of non-office-bearers. Circumstances also alter cases in this mat- 
ter. But never should the Deacons of a Church be compelled to do 
mere committee work for the Elders. This should certainly not be 
done if the Deacons have much work of their own to be done. 

Why does the article state specifically that the Deacons shall call 
upon the Name of God at their meetings? This provision was added 
in 1586. Some Diaconates were used by the civil authorities for the 
disbursement of moneys for the poor. Jansen thinks that due to this 
practice there were some who were beginning to look upon the Dea- 
cons’ meetings as being civil and secular in nature. The Churches, 
however, desired to maintain the Deacon’s office as an ecclesiastical 
institution, and to emphasize the ecclesiastical and spiritual nature of 
the Deacons’ meeting they now stipulated that the Deacons should 
call upon God’s Name in prayer at their meetings. Aside from this 
consideration, which may be true, there would be ample reasons for 
this provision in the fact that all our work must be done in deep de- 
pendency upon God. Intercession for the poor and the afflicted is 
certainly in place at the gatherings of those who have been charged 
to alleviate the burdens of the suffering. 

As Article 32 provides that the other ecclesiastical meetings shall 
be opened with prayer and closed with prayer, so Article 40 rules the 
same for Deacons’ meetings. The prayers which are found in our 
book of liturgy (Psalter Hymnal, appended pages) have largely fallen 
into disuse. This is to be regretted inasmuch as these prayers are 
very beautiful and meaningful in content. 

3. Supervision by the Ministers over these meetings. 

The clause “'whereunto the Ministers shall take good heed and if 
necessary they shall be present,” was added to this article in 1686. 
Article 25 already stipulated then, as it does now, that the Deacons 
are to render a report of their work to the Consistories, but seemingly 
some Diaconates considered themselves on equal footing with the 
Consistory or had a tendency to place themselves under the authority 
of the civil government. Consequently the Synod of 1586 added the 
clause under consideration. Thus the ecclesiastical character of the 
Deacon’s office is emphasized and the rightful place of our Diaconates 
in relation to the Consistories as well. 

The supervision here prescribed is unconditional. The Ministers 
must give good heed to the Deacons in their work. But the clause 
does not stipulate that they must always and regularly attend the 
Deacons’ meetings. But if they deem it advisable to attend they may 
do so. They have a full right to go at any time and need not wait 
for an invitation. If any specific difficulties require the presence of 
the Ministers they should go. And if the Deacons request their opinion 
on any matter of principle they should also attend the meeting. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


179 


When Ministers attend Deacons’ meetings they really do so in their 
capacity as Elders, for to these the government and supervision over 
the Church has been entrusted. It might be asked, then why does 
Article 40 not specify that the Elders shall “take good heed” to this 
matter? The fact that the Ministers are here charged to take good 
heed and if necessary be present at the meetings of the Deacons har- 
monizes with the stipulation of Article 16 regarding the Minister’s 
duties. Article 16 among other matters states that the Minister is 
“to watch over his brethren, the Elders and Deacons.” Furthermore, 
doubtless the Church Order assigns this work of supervision over the 
Deacons’ activity to the ministerial Elders since they have received 
special training for their task and as a rule are also men of greater 
experience and prestige. 

Should a Minister, if he attends a Deacons’ meeting preside over it? 
He may, but he need not. Ordinarily, it is better that he does not. 
Let him simply act the part of a visitor and advisor. 

In some of our Churches the Elders visit the Deacons’ meetings in 
turn. This is doubtless a good custom. It establishes a close contact 
between the Consistory and the Diaconate and gives every Elder an 
opportunity to keep in touch with the work. The work of supervision 
is thus at least well regulated. 

It should always be understood that Diaconates are subject to the 
judgment of the Consistories, Classes, and Synods. 

4. The Deacons and the major assemblies. 

During recent years the question has often been asked whether our 
Diaconates should not have their major assemblies. The question is 
not whether a Deacon under special circumstances may not take the 
place of an Elder, and go as a delegate to our major assemblies, for 
example, to Classis. That has often been done in former years and 
also more recently. Although it should be remembered that when a 
Deacon goes to Classis in the place of an Elder, that then he goes, 
not so much as a Deacon, but rather as an assistant Elder, just as all 
Deacons are assistant Elders in our smaller Churches, and all Elders 
assistant Deacons, according to the permissive clause of Article 37. 

The question is therefore not: May Deacons be sent to major as- 
semblies?, but rather: Should they be sent? Now some have sug- 
gested a special class of major gatherings for our Diaconates. But to 
this suggestion it may be objected that our present major assemblies. 
Classes and Synods, are representative of all the Churches and all 
the work of these Churches. There is therefore no room for specialized 
major assemblies. These would make for duplication and conflict. 
The Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, 1899, decided, in 
harmony with this opinion just expressed, that: “The organization 
of separate major assemblies for diaconal affairs certainly cannot be 
harmonized with the connection and cooperation of the offices and of 
the ecclesiastical assemblies, as these are indicated in the Confession 
and the Church Order.” 

Others have suggested that our Deacons should be delegated to 
Classis together with the Ministers and Elders, either with full rights, 
or with advisory vote only. But our Church Order has always ruled 
that only by way of exception should Deacons be added to the Con- 
sistory for all matters that require action. In very few of our larger 
Churches, if any, do the Deacons function in all matters which strictly 
speaking concern the Elders. Yet if Deacons should be delegated 
they would be placed on par with the Elders at the Classes. They 
would have to help settle discipline cases, etc., though never doing 


180 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


so at home in the government of their own Church. This certainly 
would be inconsistent and impractical. Furthermore, to send the 
Deacons in advisory capacity would hardly do. It would increase the 
expenses of the meetings. The actual instances of diaconal matters 
coming before the Classes are so few that this extra trouble and ex- 
pense would hardly be warranted. Those diaconal affairs that do re- 
quire attention at times can easily be acted upon by the Classes as 
now constituted, inasmuch as Ministers and Elders are required to 
know and approve or disapprove of all diaconal affairs as it is. 

A third suggestion, in harmony with our last remark, would have 
all diaconal matters presented to Classes as these bodies are now con- 
stituted and through avenues now existing. Thus we already have: 
Question three of Article 41, “Are the poor cared for?”; the constant 
opportunity for overtures and petitions; Church Visitation; appoint- 
ment of committees for special tasks and decisions. When commit- 
tees are needed for matters diaconal Classis should not fail to appoint 
one or several Deacons on these committees, or perchance a whole 
Diaconate. 

This latter suggestion has our full approval. It seems to be the 
best solution in as far as a solution is needed. Indeed it cannot be 
said that the problem on this point is pressing. 


ARTICLE XLI. 

The classical meetings shall consist of neighboring Churches 
that respectively delegate, with proper credentials, a Minister 
and an Elder to meet at such time and place as was determined 
by the previous classical meeting. Such meetings shall be held 
at least once in three months , unless great distances render this 
inadvisable . In these meetings the Ministers shall preside in 
rotation, or one shall be chosen to preside; however, the same 
Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession. 

Furthermore, the president shall, among other things, put 
the following questions to the delegates of each Church : 

1. Are the Consistory meetings held in your Church? 

2. Is church discipline exercised? 

3 . Are the poor and the Christian schools cared for? 

U. Do you need the judgment and help of the Classis for the 
proper government of your Church? 

And finally, at one but the last meeting and, if necessary, at 
the last meeting before the (Particular) Synod, delegates shall 
be chosen to attend said Synod. 

CONCERNING CLASSICAL MEETINGS 

This article and the five which follow it concern in the main our 
Classical organization. The present article concerns the Classical 
meeting as such; Art. 42, the matter of Churches with more than 
one Minister and Delegation to Classis; Art. 43, Mutual Censure at 
Major Assemblies; Art. 44, Church Visitation; Art. 46, Acts of Pre- 
vious Gatherings at Major Assemblies; Art. 46, Overtures to Major 
Assemblies. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


181 


1. Origin and nature of Classes. 

While the Reformation was in its infancy ecclesiastical life was not 
at all well organized. However, the Reformed Churches of the South- 
ern Netherlands (Belgium today), and the Calvinistic refugee 
Churches in England, as well as the Churches in France, soon began 
to form Classes and to meet classically. (Classis is a word derived 
from the Latin verb kalein*, signifying: to call. A Classis is there- 
fore ecclesiastically speaking a summoned gathering of Churches, or 
a group of Churches called together for a meeting, and secondarily, 
a group of Churches meeting together at regular intervals in major 
assembly.) Before the Wezelian Convention had met, 1568, the Re- 
formed Churches had not yet been organized into Classes. However 
this convention declared that Classes should be organized as soon as 
the conditions of war and persecution permitted. Dr. Bouwman enum- 
erates four reasons which demand Classical co-operation and organi- 
zation. Classes are required, says this authority, (a) because of the 
unity of the Churches in Christ; (b) because the Churches need each 
other for their continuance, extension, and purity in faith and con- 
duct; (c) because the liberty of the congregation must be maintained, 
and classical organization will be a safeguard against domineering 
and arbitrary office-bearers; (d) in order that all things may be regu- 
lated in the Church according to the Word of God, and order and 
discipline may be maintained in the congregation. 1 

The first Synod, Emden, 1571, drew up nine articles which provided 
for Classical organization. This Synod also called three Particular 
Synods into being; one for the Reformed Churches of Germany and 
Ostfriesland, one for the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and 
one for the Reformed refugee Churches in England. 

Moreover, a number of Classes were called into existence. For Hol- 
land alone four Classes were formed. But the Reformation grew very 
fast at this time so that three years later, 1574, Holland alone num- 
bered fourteen Classes. And in 1578 still others were added. Doubt- 
less many refugees returned from England and Germany during these 
years, inasmuch as the persecution subsided. And this influx of re- 
turning refugees naturally stimulated church growth in the home- 
land. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, summarized and combined a 
number of previous regulations for Classical gatherings and gave us 
Art. 41 as we have it in substance today. Seemingly some Churches 
did not immediately co-operate in forming a denomination. At least 
the provincial Synod of Gelderland, 1582, found it necessary to de- 
clare that, “it is neither advisable nor edifying, that a few Churches 
should continue to exist by themselves, but each Church is bound to 
join itself to a Classis.” Bouwman holds that the Churches are indeed 
free to join the confederation of Churches (het kerkverband), but 
they are at the same time obliged to do so, though this obligation is 
a moral one and can never be forced. When a Church has accepted 
the unity of federation, then it is not at liberty to break away, except 
the Churches wdth which she was living in confederation have for- 
saken the basis of federation, the common confession according to 
the Word of God, 2 

The article stipulates that classical meetings shall consist of neigh- 
boring Churches. A Classis is therefore not a body of men who, 
as a bpard of directors, occupy a position of superiority over and 
above the Churches. 


1. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkrecht, II, 1934, 126-7. 

2. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkreclit, II, 1934, 127. 


182 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


A Classis is a gathering of Churches meeting for mutual counsel 
and support and for united action concerning certain matters common 
to the interest of all the Churches. 

As a Consistory is a gathering of office-bearers authorized to gov- 
ern the affairs of their Church, so a Classis is a gathering of men 
representing the various Churches belonging to the Classes, and 
charged and authorized by their respective Churches to take part in 
all the legitimate labors of Classes. 

The Churches are to delegate their representatives “with proper 
credentials.” A credential is a valid, black on white, proof of delega- 
tion. These consistorial credentials verify that they who claim to be 
delegates are actually such. — But that not only. The credentials, 
when properly written, also give Classis the assurance that the dele- 
gates are authorized representatives and have been given power to 
act and charged to take part in all the work of Classis in name of 
the Church which they represent. Without credentials no one can be 
seated with a decisive vote. If however through an error or through 
unavoidable circumstances certain delegates cannot present the pre- 
scribed credentials then Classis may hear their testimony and declara- 
tion of delegation and seat them, especially in our day when the 
Churches and the various delegates know each other well enough so 
that fraud is almost out of the question. The incentive to fraud by 
impostors does not exist in our day. Nevertheless, the rule stands and 
should be maintained. See also Art. 33 on these matters. 

How many Churches are required to form a Classis? There is no 
rule regulating this matter. Classis Hackensack until 1937 numbered 
only six Churches while Classis Orange City consisted of 31 Churches. 
Due to the re-alignment of certain Classes and the creation of new 
Classes by the Synod of 1937, a greater measure of equality now 
exists. This is altogether proper. In 1603 the Synod of Harderwyk 
declared that no Classis should consist of less than 10 Churches. But 
a definite rule does not exist to this day. And this is well. 

What is a Classis Contracta ? When a number of nearby Churches 
of a certain Classis hold a meeting in order to consider and act on 
matters which can not well wait for the next regular session of 
Classis, this gathering is called a Classis Contracta. Literally it 
means a Contracted or Reduced Classis. All the Churches are notified 
and Churches at some distance from the meeting simply do not send 
delegates. They tacitly or silently approve of the action taken at the 
Classis Contracta. In Holland the approval of Ministerial credentials, 
etc., requiring action between the gatherings of Classis, is left to a 
Classis Contracta. We have a Classical Committee to take action in 
regard to matters of this kind which can not well wait. Consequently 
we seldom hold Classes Contractae. When they do occur they are 
usually previously agreed upon at a regular classical gathering in 
order that certain affairs which will require classical action in the 
near future, but not yet ready for consideration and action, may be 
properly attended to. All the Churches are notified, but it is under- 
stood that only the nearby Churches will respond, although all the 
Churches of Classis are free to send delegates. 

2. Membership of classical meetings. 

Who are to be delegated? Art. 41 stipulates: “a Minister and an 
Elder”. The Synod of Dort, 1578, also ruled that each Church should 
be represented by a Minister and an Elder. But Ministers and Elders, 
serving Churches of Classis, but not delegated, were accorded an ad- 
visory vote by this Synod. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, however. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


183 


stipulated that these visiting Ministers and Elders should not begin 
to give advice unless asked to do so. Perhaps the visiting Ministers 
and Elders abused the courtesy and privilege somewhat. Perhaps they 
talked too often or too long. At least the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 
1586, dropped the provision concerning advisory members altogether 
^nd simply stipulated that each Church should be represented by one 
Minister and one Elder. 

Should Consistories delegate by rotation or by vote? Regarding 
delegation to Classis all authorities are agreed that the rotary system 
is to be preferred, even as these same authorities favor the method 
of choice by ballot for delegation to Synod. If a Church has only one 
Minister, the rule of Art. 41 requires that he be delegated constantly. 
If a Church has more than one Minister the rotary system would re- 
quire that the Ministers are delegated in turn. Inasmuch as every 
Church has more than one Elder, it means that Churches which fol- 
low the rotary system of appointment will delegate the Elders in 
turn. Some Elders seldom go to Classes, whereas others go repeat- 
edly. But this is due to circumstances. Some Elders simply can not 
leave their work one, two, or more days. Furthermore, Elders of 
smaller Churches will be delegated much more frequently than the 
Elders from larger Churches, as stands to reason. 

It is true that not all office-bearers are equally well qualified for 
delegation to Classis. Some Elders excel in pastoral work, i. e., sick 
calling, home-visitation work, etc. Others excel in church govern- 
mental matters. In spite of this fact it is best to delegate Elders by 
rotation. All Elders should qualify themselves for service, and each 
delegation to Classis adds to the experience of the delegates. Further- 
more, if delegation should be limited to certain Ministers or Elders, 
this might foster a spirit of superiority on the part of some. There 
are arguments in favor of delegation by ballot and according to 
ability. But for our classical meetings we do not believe that these 
arguments outweigh the reasons for delegation by rotation. This 
does not mean that Consistories should never set the rotary system 
of delegation aside, and appoint their delegates by deliberate choice. 
When certain matters must be presented to Classis with which one 
of the Elders is especially well acquainted for instance, the Consistory 
will do wise to appoint that Elder. 

For each delegate the delegating Consistory should also designate 
an alternate. Inasmuch as very few of our Churches ever have more 
than one active Minister an Elder is usually appointed as alternate 
to the Minister. When a Church is vacant and has no Minister at all 
two Elders are appointed. 

According to the provision of the present article the smaller 
Churches have just as many delegates at Classis as the larger 
Churches have. Every Church, regardless of size, sends two delegates. 
This is proper and fair since each individual Church, whether large 
or small, is complete in itself and a manifestation of the body of 
Christ. Our various Churches are not subdivisions of the real super- 
Church, i.e., the denomination. Each Church is an integrity by itself 
and not just a section of the actual Church, and laboring under a 
superior ruling body to which each section sends delegates in propor- 
tion to the number of its members. This conception would fit in with 
Churches that maintain the episcopal system of Church government, 
as for instance, the Methodist Churches have, but this conception is 
not according to our Reformed system of church government. The 
Reformed system is a system by which the Churches rule themselves 
either directly (Consistories) or indirectly through delegated au- 


184 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


thority (Classes and Synods). Our Churches are governed from the 
bottom up, not from the top down. 

In as far as the varying sizes of our Churches cause a certain 
measure of disproportion, the Churches which are overly large should 
be divided into two or more Churches. That would also be to the 
spiritual welfare of these large Churches because individual work 
becomes very difficult in some of our larger Churches. 

Those delegated should attend the sessions of Classis as faithfully 
as possible. None may absent himself without weighty reason. Pas- 
toral duties should as a rule not keep a Minister from going to 
Classis. Those delegates who find themselves compelled to leave the 
gatherings before the close of the sessions, should before leaving 
obtain the approval of the assembly. 

3. Frequency and place of meeting. 

As to the place of meeting the Wezelian Convention, 1568, decided 
that the classical meetings should be held in all the Churches of a 
Classis in rotation. This was perhaps decided in order to treat all 
the Churches alike. Our fathers were always on the look-out for the 
dangers of hierarchism. But furthermore, they also had in mind that 
the Churches should thus exercise supervision over each other. Means 
of travel were primitive. The delegates would begin to arrive at the 
meeting place of Classis the day before, and thus they naturally and 
conveniently learned much concerning the affairs of the entertaining 
Church. The affairs of this Church were purposefully investigated. 
However, when at a later date it was decided that the Churches 
should exercise their supervision over each other especially by means 
of a classical committee of Church Visitors (see Art. 44) there was 
no need of holding Classis in every Church of Classis. Synod of 
’s Gravenhage, 1587, decided that classical gatherings should be held 
at the time fixed by previous gatherings and at the place determined 
by the previous gathering. From then on one Classis decided when 
and where the next would meet. This was, without question, a wise 
arrangement. Not every Church is situated so that it can be conveni- 
ently reached by all the delegates. Moreover, not every Church is able 
to entertain a large number of delegates conveniently. However, it 
is true that our Classes should meet in as many of its Churches as 
possible to give the members of our various Churches opportunity to 
attend the sessions of Classis and to stress the fact that all Churches 
are, as to their essence, equal. 

As to the frequency of classical meetings, the Wezelian Convention, 
1568, recommended that meetings be held every two or three months. 
The first Synod (Emden, 1571) because of the difficulties of the times, 
war and persecution, recommended that the Classes meet every three 
or six months. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, stipulated that the 
Classis should meet at least every three months. Thus Art. 41 still 
stipulates for the Reformed Churches in Holland. Our redaction reads : 
“Such meetings shall be held at least once in three months, unless 
great distances render this inadvisable.” For our situation in the 
U. S. A., particularly for our western Classes covering in some in- 
stances several states, meetings cannot well be held more than twice 
a year. For these reasons we have added the clause which permits 
Classes to meet less than four times a year. But the ideal is at least 
four times a year. If conditions permit four times a year is not any 
too often, for our Churches should remain in close touch with each 
other and consult each other frequently. 

In the Netherlands each classical meeting designates one of its 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


185 


Churches to call the next meeting of Classis together, to provide it 
with a copy of the minutes of the previous gathering, etc. We do 
have “calling Churches” for our Synods, Churches which summon our 
Synods. But we do not appoint a summoning or classical Church for 
calling together or convening the next Classis. We leave this matter 
to the stated clerk of Classis. Perhaps ours is the more efficient 
method, but it cannot be denied that whatever can conveniently be 
done through Churches should not be charged to individuals or com- 
mittees. This is in harmony with Reformed church polity, and safer, 
too. However, as long as our stated clerks know the limits of their 
charge and watch their step, there is no danger. 

4. Presidency at classical meetings. 

The article assigns the presidency of classical meetings to the Min- 
isters and not to the Elders. Ministers preside at these gatherings, 
not because they are better or higher in themselves, but simply be- 
cause they as a rule are better qualified for this task, having had 
more experience in leading meetings and often more tact and ability 
inasmuch as all their time and talents are devoted to Church work. 
As far as the Elder’s office is concerned he certainly would be per- 
mitted to preside. It is no question of office at all. It is only a ques- 
tion of practical wisdom. 

Up to the year 1581 the Church Orders provided that the presidents 
at classical meetings should be elected. There were good reasons for 
this provision. Conditions were irregular and all kinds of matters 
would call for solution, for the Churches were still in the formative 
period. The most capable men should therefore preside over these 
gatherings. But as conditions became more settled and classical 
meetings had been held for a number of years, it was not so essential 
that only best qualified men should preside. And so the Synod of 
1581 made this matter optional. That is to say, it decided that Classes 
could let their ministerial delegates preside in rotation, or they could 
elect one of them to preside. Presidency by rotation was made pos- 
sible at this time, we may believe, in part to avoid also in this re- 
spect hierarchical tendencies and to stress the fact that all office- 
bearers are essentially equal. But Synod of 1581 did not say that 
the rotary system must be followed. It left the whole matter optional. 
If a certain Classis would prefer to elect its president at the begin- 
ning of each meeting, as had been the rule heretofore, it would be 
at full liberty to do so. And thus the matter stands today in the 
Netherlands as with us. Even when a Classis regularly lets its min- 
isterial delegates preside in turn, then yet it may decide to elect its 
president at any given meeting. When difficult cases are to come up 
for consideration and he whose turn it would be to preside is inex- 
perienced, then for such and like reasons, the Classis should excuse 
the Minister concerned from the difficult task and elect a president. 

But the Church Order adds a condition. It reads as follows: “how- 
ever, the same Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession.” 
This proviso was doubtlessly added to ward off hierarchical tendencies. 
Once again our Reformed fathers shunned whatever might restore 
the evils of a rule by bishops. They wanted the Churches to be truly 
Presbyterian as to their self-government. The Churches should be 
ruled by the presbyters, not by superior and inferior bishops. 

Supposing a certain Minister has just presided at a classical gather- 
ing according to his turn, would the following Classis be permitted to 
elect him as its president if it should so desire? Yes, for Art. 42 does 
not say that the same Minister shall not preside twice in succession, 


186 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


but that the same Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession. 
However, unless the circumstances are very pressing and extraordin- 
ary a Classis should not elect as its president a Minister who has 
just presided over the previous gatherings of Classis. 

5. The business of classical meetings. 

In the early days of our Reformed Churches one of the first activi- 
ties on every classical program was the preaching of a sermon by 
the Ministers in turn. This was not done for purposes of worship. 
It was not a devotional number, but in those early days many Minis- 
ters were very poorly trained for their tasks as preachers of the 
Gospel. Some of them previously were monks and priests who had 
left the errors of Rome, having experienced the reviving and correct- 
ing grace which God sent so abundantly through the Reformation. 
Some of them had very little schooling and had formerly been trades- 
men and workers at various occupations. They had been admitted to 
the ministry according to the rule of Article 8, Church Order. It 
stands to reason that many of these early Ministers could well afford 
some training. To supply this training these sermons were primarily 
held. After the sermon had been delivered it would be discussed and 
criticized, both as to content and form. That this was the nature and 
purpose of these classical sermons may be plain from the provision 
accepted by the Synod of Middelburg, 1581, Article 30. This article 
reads in part as follows: “The Minister, who has been charged to do 
so by the previous Classis, shall deliver a short sermon from the 
Word of God, concerning which the others shall judge, and if they 
find it lacking in some respect, they shall point this out.” Eventually, 
however, nearly all Ministers were thoroughly trained in theology and 
also in the art of sermonizing so that there was no great need for 
the maintenance of classical sermons. The Holland Synod of 1905 
therefore eliminated the classical sermon clause in the Church Order. 
Our own Synod of 1914 followed suit. The provision had long since 
fallen into disuse. Except for a rare exception classical sermons 
were no longer preached and had not been required since the early 
days of our denominational existence in the former century. 

Our Classes are often required to give careful consideration to 
overtures, protests and appeals. Reports rendered by certain standing 
committees, such as the Classical Committee, the Home Mission Com- 
mittee, etc., always require time and attention. Furthermore the re- 
ports rendered by delegates to Synod, or of those appointed to serve 
on the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary and the 
Board of Missions, must be received and considered. 

An important work of our Classes recurring again and again is the 
examination and admittance of men to the ministry. 

6. Questions for mutual supervision. 

The matter of mutual supervision occupied a prominent place on 
the classical schedule of former days. With us the asking of the pre- 
scribed questions has become a mere detail on the classical menu card, 
usually performed in a rather mechanical fashion, and very often in 
great haste. Now the situation was quite different in years of yore. 
Formerly the supervisory questions were asked at the beginning of 
the meetings, and with variation as the president saw fit. He also 
added questions which he might consider pertinent. At least such 
were his rights. Synod of Dort, 1578, Art. 29 (14) decided: “The 
President having offered prayer, shall ask each delegation in par- 
ticular, whether the ordinary discipline is being maintained in their 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


187 


congregations; whether they are being attacked by heresies; whether 
they doubt the correctness of any part of the accepted doctrine; 
whether they are giving good heed to the poor and the schools; 
whether they need the advice or help of the brethren regarding the 
government of their Church; and other like matters.” Synod of Mid- 
delburg, 1581, revised this article somewhat and gave us the ques- 
tions as we find them substantially in our present Article 41. 

With what purpose then were these questions formulated? To give 
the Churches a brief guide in their supervision over each other. The 
Church of Rome exercises supervision through its superior officers. 
This system the reformation Churches rejected. But they did main- 
tain the element of supervision. Only they believed that all Churches 
and office-bearers were essentially equal, so they decided that super- 
vision should be exercised in a mutual fashion. The Churches should 
supervise each other. And this work of mutual supervision was made 
to be an important and prominent item in the bill of fare for each 
Classis. At a later date it was decided that this work of supervision 
at Classis should be supplanted by means of Church Visitors. (See 
Article 44.) Fi*om then on the supervisory work at Classis did not 
occupy quite such a prominent place on the schedule of each Classis, 
we may believe. But the Churches certainly did not intend that the 
exercise of mutual supervision at Classis should become a mere per- 
functory, last-minute formality. This mutual supervision at the clas- 
sical meeting bears a unique character since it is done in the presence 
of all the Churches represented there. Hence there is a place for 
such examination during the session of Classis though Classis also 
appoints special Church Visitors. 

The first mutual supervision question is: Are the Consistory meet- 
ings held in your Church? The question is not: What is your mode 
of procedure at Consistory meetings, etc.?, but are the meetings of 
your Consistory held regularly? If any Consistory should fail to 
meet regularly, which even for the smallest Churches should mean 
at least once a month, such Consistory must be admonished by the 
president of Classis, then and there. Good order in the Church of 
God requires that the Consistory meet regularly. 

Next comes the question: “Is church discipline exercised?” One of 
the great reasons for the complete breakdown of many Churches is 
that they have failed to exercise Church discipline. The chaff will 
ever mix itself with the wheat. Satan will always seek to harm the 
cause of God from within. If members who prove to be unfaithful 
in doctrine and conduct are tolerated in the Church the evil one has 
more than won half the battle. For the reclamation of the unfaithful, 
and for the preservation of the Church, constant vigilance on the 
score of discipline is absolutely necessary. Discipline is so easily 
neglected, especially when men become shallow and lukewarm, and 
when erroneous, false doctrines begin to creep in. 

The next question is: Are the poor cared for? The significance of 
this question is whether the Church concerned provides for its poor. 
The poor may not be neglected. The love and mercy of Christ, our 
merciful High Priest, must constrain us to be faithful in relieving 
want and distress. And particular Churches, which have no poor, 
should try to relieve other Churches which are heavily burdened, and 
also assist in supporting institutions of mercy which exercise Chris- 
tian care toward afflicted members of the Church. 

Furthermore the question follows: Does the Consistory support the 
cause of the Christian schools? Formerly the question was simply 
asked whether the schools were cared for. During post-Reformation 


188 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


days the schools were government owned. But the governments were 
Reformed and sponsored the cause of the Reformed Churches of Hol- 
land. They left the management of the schools to the Consistories. 
These acted, we might say, as School Boards. They engaged and ex- 
amined the teachers and supervised their instruction, particularly in- 
sisting on purity in doctrine. But eventually the government of Hol- 
land became “neutral” and the schools also. Then societies for the 
establishment and maintenance of Christian Schools were organized. 
In view of the situation as it obtains in our country our people have 
also sponsored the establishment and maintenance of Christian 
Schools. In harmony with this situation the question concerning the 
schools was made to read as it does. Thorough Christian instruction 
is very necessary for our children in this day of unscriptural teachings 
and attitudes, and so our Churches stand committed to the cause of 
Christian Schools. (See Art. 21.) 

Here the delegates to Classis are asked whether the Consistory is 
actually supporting these schools. The meaning is whether the Con- 
sistory is giving the cause its moral and active support. Not all 
Churches are fully aware of the dangers of a humanistic, man- 
centered, Godless, and Christless school. Some Churches and Con- 
sistories are apt to be lukewarm and unfaithful. Consequently this 
supervisory question is asked at every classical gathering. Needless 
to say that this important question should be asked with care and 
emphasis in proportion to the evil of public school instruction in a 
given locality. It should not be overlooked that the meaning of this 
question is not merely: Is there a Christian School for the youth of 
your Church, and do you urge the parents to use this school? No, 
in harmony with Art. 21, Consistories should ascertain for themselves 
whether the instruction which the children of their Church receive is 
Christian, or rather Reformed. Consistories must be sure that the 
schools which they are supporting are not merely Christian in name 
or to a certain extent, but that they are maintaining their distinctive 
character to the very best of their ability. (Cf., what has been said 
concerning Art. 21.) 

Finally the question is asked: Do you need the judgment and help 
of the Classis for the proper government of your Church? We speak 
of “proper government” in this question. The original reads: “rechte 
instelling.” Our term is too limited. For “instelling” refers not mere- 
ly to the government of the Church but also to its organization. It 
seems to refer to the governmental “set-up” of the Churches as well 
as to the proper functioning of this organization. Consistories or 
delegates are not expected to raise all kinds of questions dealing with 
interesting and perhaps important matters, but they are to limit them- 
selves to questions which are at that time actually problems to them. 
The purpose of classical gatherings is to help each other in the proper 
government of the Churches. Classis is therefore interested in specific 
cases, not abstract probabilities. 

The president of Classis replies to the questions asked, but often 
others are also asked to give their judgment. If anyone cannot agree 
with the advice of the president he must say so and explain his stand. 

When a matter is weighty the Consistory should formulate its re- 
quest for advice or help and write the same on its letter of credence. 
In that case Classis will also give reply in the form of a resolution. 

Article 41 stipulates that the president shall ask these questions 
just discussed “among other things.” Synod of Dort, 1578, decided 
that the president should ask these things, “en andere diergelyke 
dingen meer.” From this we may infer that this expression “among 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


189 


other things” refers not to other activities of Classis, but to other 
questions which the president may be inclined to ask. This is also 
the most natural and most obvious interpretation of the phrase, 
“among other things”. We mention this matter because the other in- 
terpretation suggested above is sometimes given. The president of 
Classis should therefore feel free to vary the prescribed or suggested 
questions as he deems best, and to add other questions as circum- 
stances may demand. 

We should be very careful not to reduce the work of mutual super- 
vision of our Classes to a mere formality, simply kept up to satisfy 
the “letter of the law.” In regard to this and other matters we are 
apt to lose sight of the real significance and correct method of an 
institution and then condemn it, forgetting that what we condemn as 
useless is our own perversion of a valuable institution. 

7. Elections of delegates to Synod. 

If possible delegates to Synod are chosen “at one but the last meet- 
ing” of Classis before Synod. This rule holds for Classes that meet 
every three or four months. It is better to elect the delegates to 
Synod a few months before Synod than immediately before this body 
meets, in order that the appointed delegates may give special study 
to the matters which are to be presented. But for Classes which can 
meet only twice a year this rule would not work so well, and so the 
conditional clause “if necessary, at the last meeting before Synod” 
has been added to this article. 

Article 50 deals more directly with delegation to Synod, and so 
we reserve a few thoughts regarding qualifications of delegates, 
method of delegation, etc., until we come to the consideration of that 
article. However, note that Article 41 speaks of choosing said dele- 
gates. We read: “. . . delegates shall be chosen to attend said Synod.” 
The presupposition is very clearly that delegates to Synod are ap- 
pointed by deliberate choice, by ballot, and not according to some 
rotary system. But more of this later. 


ARTICLE XLII. 

Where in a Church there are more Ministers than one , also 
those not delegated according to the foregoing article shall have 
the right to attend Classis with advisory vote. 

MINISTERS NOT DELEGATED TO CLASSIS ADVISORY 
MEMBERS 

The present reading of this article dates back to 1914 when our 
Churches revised it following the example of the Reformed Churches 
in the Netherlands (1905). 

1. Equality of representation at classical meetings. 

Article 41, as we have noted, provides that every Church shall be 
represented at Classis by two delegates, a Minister and an Elder. 
Whether the Church is large or small, it is represented at Classis by 
two delegates. A Church which consists of 25 families sends two 
delegates just as well as a Church of 200 or 400 families. The ques- 
tion has often been asked: Is this method of delegation just and fair 


190 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


to the larger Churches? In the Netherlands this seeming inequality 
is still more prominent since many city Churches have a membership 
of thousands of families, each city haying but one Church or congre- 
gation, although several church buildings and sometimes more Min- 
isters than buildings. 

In the consideration of this matter the principle involved should 
not escape us- Which principle? That our Classes are composed of 
Churches and not of individuals. The membership of our Classes does 
not consist of Ministers and Elders but of Churches. The individual 
Churches are the units of our classical organizations. 

In this respect there is some difference between our conception and 
that of the Presbyterian Churches of our land. According to Presby- 
terian practice a Minister becomes a member of his Presbytery, or as 
we would say, Classis. He presides over the Session (Consistory) of 
the Church with which he is connected and is called Moderator of 
Session, but he is not a member of the Church which he serves. He 
is a member of the Presbytery. According to Reformed church polity, 
however, no individual is, strictly speaking, a member of Classis. A 
Minister or Elder can only be said to be a member of Classis in the 
sense that his Church has delegated him to represent it at a certain 
classical gathering. 

Now this principle, as will be granted, demands two things. First 
of all, that all who receive and exercise a decisive vote at our Classes 
shall actually represent one of the Churches of Classis through official 
delegation. And secondly this principle demands that each Church 
be represented by an equal number of delegates. For practical reasons 
it has been agreed that each Church shall be represented by two 
brethren, a Minister and an Elder, or, in case the Church is vacant, 
by two Elders. 

But so it has been asked, is not this arrangement after all unfair 
to the larger Churches? We answer: Overly large Churches should 
be divided into two or more smaller Churches. In overly large 
Churches the individual members do not receive the pastoral care 
which they require. By dividing the larger Churches individual spir- 
itual care can be exercised much easier. Thus also the “inequality” at 
Classical gatherings will be corrected to some extent. But the main 
point is that every Church unit is a self-governing manifestation of 
the body of Christ standing on par as to rights and authority with 
every other Church. 

Yet it is true that the larger Churches represent a much larger 
number of believers than do the smaller Churches. So it has been 
decided that those Churches which have more than one Minister may 
send all their Ministers to Classis, with the clear understanding how- 
ever that only one shall have a decisive vote and all the rest merely 
an advisory vote. In this way the principle of equality is maintained 
for all the Churches have the same number of votes, but at the same 
time Classes is being served by the advice of all the Ministers labor- 
ing in its domain and all the larger Churches thus receive ample op- 
portunity to voice their sentiments, problems and convictions. 

2. The history of this article. 

The Synod of Dort. 1578, ruled that every Church should be repre- 
sented at Classis by a Minister and an Elder. Ministers not delegated 
received an advisory vote. The Elders of the places where Classis 
met also received an advisory vote. 

It soon became customary to send all the Ministers which a Church 
had to Classis. The presence of all the Ministers was appreciated, 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


191 


particularly since some of the best informed men were Ministers of 
city Churches and many of the smaller Churches with but one Min- 
ister were served by men with but a meager training and little knowl- 
edge of Church government. Besides, the problems which the Churches 
had to solve were far from easy. Many felt that these Ministers who 
served the Classes in an advisory capacity should be seated with a 
decisive vote. Synod of 1581 was overtured so to decide but this Synod 
ruled against the petitioners. Matters remained as they were. Synod 
of South Holland, 1597, again considered the matter and referred the 
question to the next General Synod. But this General Synod was not 
held until the years 1618-19. During the intervening years the Classes 
used their own judgment. Many of them gave all the Ministers a 
decisive vote. And the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, decided that all 
the Ministers of Churches having more than one Minister should have 
a decisive vote at Classes, except in matters which concerned their 
own Churches or their own persons. Synod of Dort, 1618-19, therefore 
adapted itself to the practice that had sprung up, but attached one 
condition, a condition which was meant to safeguard the Churches 
against unfairness and domination. 

However, Article 42, as it was accepted by the Synod of 1618-19 
was really in conflict with Article 41 as adopted by this same Synod. 
And Article 42 also violated the principles explained above. For these 
reasons the Churches of Holland returned to the reading of 1578, as 
has already been noticed. And we did the same in 1914 at our Synod 
in Roseland, Chicago. 


ARTICLE XLIII. 

At the close of the Classical and other major assemblies , 
Censure shall be exercised over those, who in the meeting 
have done something worthy of punishment, or who have scorned 
the admonition of the minor assemblies. 

MUTUAL CENSURE AT CLASSES AND SYNODS 

1. Censure according to Article 43 differentiated from censure ac- 
cording to Article 35 and Article 81. 

Article 35 provides that the presidents of our assemblies are “to 
see to it that everyone observe due order in speaking, to silence the 
captious and those who are vehement in speaking, and to properly 
discipline them if they refuse to listen.” From this it is plain that 
Article 35 and Article 43 have much akin. However, the censure pro- 
vided for in Article 35 is to be exercised by the person of the presi- 
dent in his capacity as assembly leader. He is to perform this duty 
while the meeting is in process. As soon as someone commits an 
offense the president must call him to order and rebuke him if need be. 

The censure provided for in Article 43, however, is to be exercised 
“at the close” of major assemblies. Furthermore, this censure is to 
be exercised, not by the president, but by the assembly itself. The 
article does not specify who is to exercise the censure which it pre- 
scribes. It is not assigned to anyone in particular and therefore it 
follows that this censure is to be mutual. The gathering as such ex- 
ercises this censure. 


192 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Censure according to Article 43 also differs from the mutual censure 
prescribed in Article 81. The 81st article of the Church Order pro- 
vides that “The Ministers of the Word, Elders, and Deacons, shall 
before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper exercise Christian censure 
among themselves and in a friendly spirit admonish one another with 
regard to the discharge of their office.” 

This censure is still often indicated by the Latin term “censura 
morum”, i.e., censure of conduct. This censure is also mutual. The 
various members of the gathering are required to admonish or criti- 
cize each other. But Article 81 refers to Consistories and not to 
major assemblies. Furthermore, Article 81 concerns itself not so 
much with the conduct of the office-bearers at their meetings, as 
with “the discharge of their office.” Mutual censure as exercised at 
Consistory meetings before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper con- 
cerns itself with this question: Is there anything in the work of any 
of the Ministers, Elders or Deacons of the Consistory which should 
be criticised? But, Article 43, as stated above, refers to the conduct 
of office-bearers at Classis or Synods. 

2. Why Article 43 was included in the Church Order. 

During the Reformation era many entered the service of the 
Churches who knew little concerning good behavior and orderly con- 
duct at ecclesiastical assemblies. Seemingly disorder would disturb 
classical and synodical gatherings. Men would speak out of turn or 
give way to angry words, etc. To curb this evil it was decided that 
mutual censure should be exercised at the conclusion of each meeting 
in order that the guilty ones might be admonished and rebuked. That 
this 43rd article was not included in the Church Order without good 
reason may be inferred from the concluding minute of the Particular 
Synod of Alkmaar, 1593, which reads as follows: “And furthermore, 
with this the Synod was concluded; and the censure being held, 
nothing was found (God be praised!) to be worthy of punishment, 
but all things took place with edification and peace, and thus the ac- 
tions were concluded with thanksgiving to God.” * 

Seemingly some were also slow to submit themselves to the judg- 
ment of the assemblies, for the present article also provides that such 
as had “scorned the admonition of the minor assemblies” should be 
censured at the conclusion of classical or synodical gatherings. 

By this provision our Churches do not say in the least that we must 
always submit to the judgment and declaration of ecclesiastical gath- 
erings. . Article 31, as has been noted, clearly specifies, “If anyone 
complains that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor 
assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical 
assembly. . .” But, as Article 31 also specifies, “. . . and whatever 
may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled 
and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or 
with the Articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not 
changed by a General Synod.” 

Now this latter ruling of Article 31 is altogether reasonable. 
Therefore Article 43 here declares that also they who have “scorned 
the admonition of the minor assemblies” shall be censured at the 
conclusion of major assemblies. 

We may note with gratitude that we have really outgrown the 
need of Article 43, at least as far as its first provision is concerned. 
Yet the article does no harm in our Church Order and for the cur- 


• cf. Jansen: Korte Verklaring, etc., p. 196. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


193 


tailment of any evil habits at our ecclesiastical gatherings it would 
be well for the presidents to ask before the gatherings disband 
whether any member of Classis or Synod desires to admonish or cor- 
rect any of his fellow members regarding their conduct at the meet- 
ings of the assembly. And to be sure, in the interest of good order 
and denominational unity according to the Word of God, it is well 
that all who scorn the admonition of minor assemblies, be called to 
order by major assemblies as Article 43 demands. 


ARTICLE XLIV. 

The Classis shall authorize at least two of her oldest , most 
experienced and competent Ministers to visit all the Churches 
once a year and to take heed whether the Minister and the Con- 
sistory faithfully perform the duties of their office , adhere to 
sound doctrine , observe in all things the adopted order , and 
properly promote as much as lies in them , through word and 
deed, the upbuilding of the congregation, in particular of the 
y6uth, to the end that they may in time fraternally admonish 
those who have in anything been negligent, and may by their 
advice and assistance help direct all things unto the peace, up- 
building, and greatest profit of the Churches. And each Classis 
may continue these visitors in service as long as it sees fit, ex- 
cept where the visitors themselves request to be re- 
leased for reasons of which the Classis shall judge. 

CHURCH VISITATION 

The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, drafted and accepted the first 
reading of this article. It was enlarged by the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
and was but slightly altered by our Synod of 1914. The original read- 
ing provided that the Church Visitors should by their advice and as- 
sistance ‘‘help direct all things unto the peace, up-building, and great- 
est profit of the churches and schools.” In our redaction of 1914 the 
reference to schools was left out. The schools of Holland at the time 
were government owned but the management and control was left to 
the Churches. Inasmuch as our public schools are of an entirely dif- 
ferent character and are not at all controlled by the Churches, and 
since our Christian Schools are owned and managed by Christian 
School Societies, the reference to schools was left out of Article 44 
in 1914. 

1. The origin of Church Visitation. 

Church Visitation was not instantly introduced. It is some time 
after the Reformation that we hear of it. In fact, many leaders at 
first opposed its introduction. Some claimed that it was dangerous to 
introduce it inasmuch as it might lead to hierarchism, an evil of 
which the Churches were much afraid. 

At first the need for Church Visitation was less urgent since the 
Classes met much oftener, in some instances every month. These 
classical meetings, as we have noted before (cf., Art. 41), were held 
in the various Churches of the Classes in turn. This was done to 
counteract hierarchism. Our fathers wanted to stress the fact that 
all Churches are equal in authority. But the classical gatherings 


194 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


were also held in all the Churches in rotation, so that the affairs of 
the Church with which the Classis met could be observed and inves- 
tigated at close range. Mutual supervision was in this way exercised 
at Classis. But it was difficult to meet in rotation and to meet so 
frequently. Ultimately the Classes met four times a year and only in 
those Churches which could best entertain a number of delegates. 
Thus the need for Church Visitation became greater. The Churches 
of the province of Zeeland instituted Church Visitation in the year 
1581. These Churches also asked the General Synod of that year to 
introduce it for all the Churches. But this Synod answered that it 
deemed a rule by General Synod in part unnecessary and in part 
dangerous: unnecessary, inasmuch as the Classes and Particular 
Synods could introduce Church Visitation wherever necessary; and 
dangerous, because the Visitors might begin to act as if they were 
superintendents. But demand for a general introduction of the cus- 
tom continued, especially in the province of South Holland. Those 
who advocated the introduction of Church Visitation said that many 
of the Churches in their provinces showed little regard for denomi- 
national unity and that many of the Ministers lacked the necessary 
training, and therefore needed some supervision and control. 

And so we find that the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, recommended 
the introduction of Church Visitation to the Classes. Soon the prac- 
tice was maintained in all the provinces except North Holland. The 
Churches of this province desired to keep the custom optional. But 
the great Synod of Dort, 1518-19, made the practice general and 
imperative. Perhaps the turmoil and harm caused by the Arminian 
errors had convinced this Synod that mutual censure, properly con- 
ducted, is highly necessary. 

2. The task of Church Visitors. 

The committee of Church Visitors, so Article 44 specifies first of 
all, are to take heed “whether the Minister and the Consistory faith- 
fully perform the duties of their office.” All the office-bearers should 
diligently perform their duties. 

The welfare of the Churches demands loyalty and devotion to duty 
on the part of the office-bearers. The spiritual life of God’s people 
cannot develop normally unless the office-bearers are true and diligent. 
All too many Protestant Churches have indeed offices and office- 
bearers, but little more. And the condition of these Churches show 
the clear results of this neglect. 

In the second place the Visitors shall give particular heed to the 
doctrinal position of the office-bearers. Impure and false doctrine on 
the part of office-bearers is very dangerous. Office-bearers who cher- 
ish wrong conceptions will not only tolerate error in the Church, but 
they will also sponsor the spreading of wrong conceptions. False 
doctrine destroys both Churches and souls, and is always a dishonor 
to God. 

In the third place the Visitors must determine whether or not the 
“adopted order” is observed in all things. This refers to the Church 
Order. The Church Order has been adopted by all the Churches and 
for all the Churches. Its fundamental rulings are gleaned from God’s 
own Word or based upon the principles expressed in that Word. 
Others are rules for good order mutually agreed upon. The former 
should be maintained because they carry direct divine authority and 
the latter because good order demands it. Our Church Order is very 
brief. All of its rulings have been approved and adopted to promote 
the true spiritual welfare of God’s people. Churches and office-bearers 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


195 


who ignore the “adopted order” promote disharmony and conflict. All 
wilfulness and arbitrariness should be barred from the Churches. The 
Church Order allows for much liberty and freedom of action. It does 
not rule out all differences of opinion and of methods. But regarding 
certain fundamental principles it is positive. Now the Visitors must 
note, in the interest of God’s Church and His people, whether the 
rules agreed upon are adhered to. 

In the fourth place the Church Visitors are to note whether the 
office-bearers are “properly promoting as much as lies in them, 
through word and deed, the upbuilding of the congregation, in par- 
ticular of the youth.” The forces of sin are constantly undermining 
the Church of God. Decay must ever be warded off. Forces within 
and without are ever threatening the welfare of God’s heritage. Con- 
sequently God’s special servants must always work for “the upbuild- 
ing of the congregation.” They must do this by word and deed. 
Words are necessary, but words must be accompanied with deeds. 
Every Consistory must do its utmost. Vigorous application to duty 
is always necessary. Without constant vigilance and loyal activity 
the spiritual life of any Church will recede. It is especially gratify- 
ing that the young people and children receive special consideration 
in this connection. Unless the lambs of the flock are properly tended 
and fed how can the cause of God flourish? Church Visitors are 
therefore charged to bear the youth of the Churches in mind par- 
ticularly as they confer with the various Consistories. 

3. The appointment of Church Visitors. 

Church Visitation is mutual in character. By means of this insti- 
tution the Churches watch for each other’s welfare and advise and 
admonish each other when necessary. Church Visitation is not an 
institution of supervision, exercised by superior officers over inferior 
officers. Neither is it supervision exercised by an authoritative su- 
perior body over inferior bodies. The various Churches comprising 
a Classis, being: all equal in authority, supervise each other. Conse- 
quently the Visitors are also appointed by these Churches themselves 
as their representatives for this work. These appointments take place 
at classical gatherings of the Churches. 

Are Elders also eligible for this work? Article 44 speaks only of 
Ministers. Yet this supervisory and advisory work is first of all the 
task of overseers or Elders and not that of its Ministers or preachers. 
Ministers who act as Visitors do so in their capacity of ruling Elders 
and not in their capacity as teaching Elders. Consequently as far 
as the office of our Elders is concerned they are altogether eligible 
for Church Visitation work. Yet Article 44 stipulates that Ministers 
shall be appointed for this work. Doubtless because Ministers as a 
rule have more time and better qualifications for this important work. 
But no Classis would violate a principle of Reformed church polity 
if it should appoint an Elder for this work. Years ago some of the 
provincial Synods of Holland, so Jansen informs us,* had rules which 
definitely permitted the appointment of Elders as Church Visitors. 

How many Visitors should each Classis have ? The article stipu- 
lates “at least two.” The appointment of two Visitors for each Classis 
or group of Churches is common practice in all our Classes. Article 
44, however, permits the appointment of more than two. If at any 
time a Classis deems it advisable, it may appoint three, four, or more 
Visitors to visit a Church or group of Churches. If ever more than 


* Jansen: Korte Yerklaring, etc., p. 198. 


196 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


two Visitors are appointed, it may be well to include one or more 
Elders in order that the semblance and danger of ministerial domi- 
nance may be avoided. 

Which Ministers should be appointed as Visitors? The article 
stipulates the “oldest, most experienced and* competent.” Church Visi- 
tors are often confronted with vexing problems. If they are to extend 
real help in the solution of such problems, it stands to reason that 
they must be men well versed in the principles and practices of Re- 
formed Church government; they must have a good doctrinal under- 
standing and must have a great deal of practical wisdom and experi- 
ence. As a rule these qualifications are found in a greater measure 
with the older Ministers than with the younger ones. Consequently 
we read: “The Classis shall authorize at least two of her oldest, most 
experienced and competent Ministers. . .” Our fathers did not mean 
to say however, that the oldest men are always the most experienced 
and competent. The original Latin reads: “Minimum binos, aetate, 
experientia, et prudentia maxime conspicuos.” The meaning, there- 
fore, is clearly that the Classes shall choose at least two of its Min- 
isters who, by reason of their age, experience and wisdom, are most 
outstanding. Now as a rule the older Ministers have more experience 
and wisdom than the younger Ministers. But not always. Classes may 
have to pass by an older man for a younger man inasmuch as the 
younger man is providentially better qualified for the work of Church 
Visitation than the older man. But as a rule the older men are best 
qualified for this service. In the past many of our Classes have ap- 
pointed men almost at random. Young men just in the ministry would 
sometimes be appointed, even when they had no outstanding qualifi- 
cations for this work and when much better qualified men were avail- 
able. Doubtless these careless appointments were due to the fact that 
the real significance of Church Visitation according to Article 44 was 
lost sight of. The work was performed by many visitors in a routine, 
mechanical fashion. The list of questions approved by Synod of 1922 
were asked in such a mechanical fashion that some suggested that 
this work be done by means of mailed questionnaires. That would 
save time, money, and trouble. Synod of 1936 urged all Classes: “to 
perform this work (the work of Church Visitation) in a way most 
conducive to the (welfare) of the Churches, in full accord with the 
spirit of Article 44 which militates against all mechanization and re- 
quires a thorough discussion on all matters pertaining to the welfare 
of the Church, particularly of the youth.” * 

This was no doubt a necessary and timely warning. It would not 
have been out of place if in this connection Synod had urged the 
Classes specifically not to choose the Visitors at random, but only 
from among those Ministers who by reason of their age, experience 
and wisdom, are most outstanding. 

How are the Visitors to be appointed? Not by rotation, but only 
by deliberate choice as is plain from the foregoing, and also from 
the very words of Article 44. These Visitors should preferably be 
appointed for the term of one year with the understanding that the 
Church Order permits immediate reappointment. To appoint men for 
a long period of time might foster hierarchical tendencies. Voetius in 
his day urged that at least one of the two or three Visitors be re- 
elected so as to secure a measure of continuity, a quality both de- 
sirable and necessary for Church Visitation work.** 


• Acts of Synod, 1936, p. 123. 

•• Janen: Korte Verklaring\ etc., 1923. p. 199. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


197 


4. Time and method of Visitation. 

The Church Visitors are to visit all the Churches once a year. If 
special conditions require that the visit be repeated, the Visitors re- 
peat their call. These special visits may be made at the request of 
the Consistory concerned, or upon the initiative of the Church Visitors. 
The Churches have a right to call upon the Church Visitors when- 
ever their help or counsel is needed. And the Visitors have a right 
to come even when not requested to do so. Of course, the Visitors 
must give an account of all their work to Classis. Consistories or 
Consistory members who feel that the Visitors have neglected their 
duty, or have gone beyond their authorization, or have misdirected 
matters, may appeal to Classis. 

Must the regular visits of Church Visitors be announced to the 
congregation? Yes, to give the members an opportunity to appear 
before the Consistory in the presence of the Visitors to voice their 
disagreement with the Consistory on a pending issue. 

Must the Visitors consider possible complaints against a Consistory 
on the part of members? Yes, although as stands to reason, the Visi- 
tors must first assure themselves of the fact that the parties con- 
cerned have previously sought to secure satisfaction. New cases may 
not be brought before the Church Visitors. These must first be pre- 
sented to the Consistory. Then if no settlement is reached and if the 
complaint remains, the Church Visitors are required to consider the 
case. In this connection it should be remembered, however, that 
Church Visitors can only advise a Consistory as representatives of 
all the Churches of a Classis. They can not make decisions which are 
binding for a Consistory. 

Are the meetings at which the Visitors are present private or open ? 
Private, inasmuch as personal matters are constantly touched upon. 
The true welfare of the Churches demands a certain measure of 
secrecy. 

Who presides at Consistory meetings at which the Church Visitors 
are present? The president of the Consistory. Very often the Visitors 
take complete charge of the meeting, one of the Visitors acting as 
president and the other as secretary. In fact the “Rules for Church 
Visitation” approved by Synod of 1922 state, “At the meeting one 
of the Visitors shall function as president, and the other as clerk.” 
This rule, however, should be altered in such a fashion that the Visi- 
tors merely act as president and clerk of the committee which meets 
with the Consistory. For Visitors to take over a Consistory meeting 
without being asked to do so specifically fits in well with Churches 
holding the Episcopal form of government, but not with those holding 
the Reformed system. When trouble disturbs, a Consistory will do 
wise to ask one of the Visitors to preside over the Consistory meeting. 

Article 44 stipulates that all the Churches shall be visited once a 
year. This does not mean that the Visitors may not visit a Church 
more than once a year. The very fact that Church Visitors are not 
merely charged to visit each Church once, but for a period of one or 
two years, indicates that their work is not finished when the prescribed 
annual visit has been completed. At any time, as has been noted, they 
may be called in by one of the Churches. And whenever they feel in 
duty bound to do so they may repeat their visit. Due to great dis- 
tances and the proportionate expense involved some Classes conduct 
regular Church Visitation only every other year. As soon as condi- 
tions permit the annual visits prescribed should be carried out. 

Visitors should not dwell overly long on matters which are of minor 


198 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


import. They should conserve their time for matters of greater im- 
port. Certain matters require a very brief annual check-up, as a 
matter of safety. But the greatest amount of good proceeds from 
the work of Church Visitors if they will reduce the routine aspect of 
their labors to a minimum and individualize their work in each 
Church, stressing those matters which require special attention. They 
should by all means so arrange their work that ample time will be 
left for the consideration of questions which the Consistory may de- 
sire to present. 

Should individual Consistory members also be permitted to bring up 
for discussion questions of their own choosing ? If time permits, there 
can be no objections against this. Informal discussions on matters of 
Church government or matters which concern the spiritual welfare of 
our Churches may help to make the work of the Visitors more in- 
teresting and more fruitful. 

According to our Rules for Church Visitation some matters are to 
be discussed in the presence of all the Consistory members, Ministers, 
Elders, and Deacons. But questions which concern the work and the 
conduct of Ministers in particular, are discussed in their absence. The 
same rule holds for Elders and Deacons. This is a good rule. If the 
work of mutual supervision carried on through Church Visitation is 
to have real significance, then thoroughness and frankness must mark 
this work. Faults and shortcomings, worthy of mention, will come to 
the attention of the Visitors much more readily if the various groups 
of office-bearers will absent themselves for a little while than when 
they remain in the gathering. Some have said that if a matter re- 
quires mentioning the responding brother should be as willing to 
broach the matter in the presence of the party concerned as in his 
absence. But this is reasoning too idealistically. Moreover, it is better 
in many instances for the office-bearer who may need correction that 
he does not know who broached the matter. To know who mentioned 
the matter would tend to introduce a personal element which is un- 
desirable. 

It should not be forgotten in this connection that Consistory mem- 
bers should not lodge complaints against each other at the time of 
Church Visitation, unless the matter has first been discussed privately 
with the brother concerned, or has been mentioned at the time of 
“censura morum”, i.e., mutual censure, held four times a year in 
each Consistory. (See Art. 81.) Only if Church Visitors in their 
discussion with the brethren discover a condition which requires cor- 
rection do they have a right to mention the matter forthwith, and 
shall do so, unless they feel that another approach, i.e., action by the 
Consistory or private consultation, promises to be more fruitful. 

Should the Church Visitors themselves record their visit in the 
minute book of each Consistory? Preferably this should be left to 
the Clerk of the Consistory. The custom referred to seems to have 
originated in the Hervormde Kerk van Nederland when the Reformed 
conception of Church government began to fade and wane. Church 
Visitors began to function more and more as superintendents. They 
examined the external affairs of the Churches rather closely. They 
inspected the Church buildings and grounds, the record books, etc. 
The spiritual emphasis was lost. The real task of the Visitors was 
largely or wholly neglected. Then the Visitors, at the conclusion of 
their visit as “inspectors”, would declare over their signatures in the 
minute book not only that Church Visitation was conducted by them 
but also that all things were found to be in good order, or else the 
contrary if such were the case. Of course if a certain Consistory 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


199 


desires that the Church Visitors shall make a record in the minute 
book of the Consistory of the fact that they have visited with the 
Consistory that is harmless and needless. The clerk of the Consistory 
can just as well do this himself. And as far as the books are con- 
cerned, a committee of Church Visitors is not called upon to make 
a close inspection of all the books and records. A casual glance at 
the books or a paging of the Church records with a view to order and 
neatness, for instance, does not warrant the Visitors to declare over 
their signature that all things were found to be in good order. 


ARTICLE XLV. 

It shall be the duty of the Church in which the Classis and 
likewise the (Particular) or General Synod meets to furnish 
the following meeting with the minutes of the preceding . 

ACTS OF PREVIOUS GATHERINGS AT MAJOR ASSEMBLIES 

1. The reason for this ruling. 

In Article 34 our Church Order stipulates, “In all assemblies there 
shall be not only a president, but also a clerk to keep a faithful record 
of all important matters.” Now the present article rules that the 
Church, in which the Classis or the Synod meets, shall see to it that 
a copy of these previous minutes or Acts are present: not a copy of 
the Acts of all previous assemblies, but a copy of the Acts of the 
preceding gathering only. The provision of this article was first 
adopted by the Synod of Dort, 1578. As adopted by this Synod the 
article stipulated that the Acts of the previous Synod should be 
present at the next Synod. The convening Church, with which also 
the Synod would meet, was charged to see to it that said Minutes or 
Acts were present. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, revised the article 
so that from this year on, the rule also applied to Classes. 

In our day and age the provision of this article is less urgent. We 
have printed copies of our synodical Acts, a copy of which is sent to 
every Consistory member in the whole denomination. Moreover, each 
Consistory receives a copy for its files or archives. Individuals who 
desire a copy can secure one at a nominal charge. But in former days, 
when printing was much more costly, there was no such widespread 
circulation of Synodical decisions. Consequently the provision of Ar- 
ticle 45 was wholly in place. To conduct a synodical meeting without 
the Acts of the previous gathering being on hand would be very 
unwise to say the least. 

2. This responsibility attached to the convening Church. 

We of today also see to it that the Acts or minutes of previous 
assemblies are present at the next one. As a rule the Acts or minutes 
of assemblies for several years back are on hand in order that these 
may be consulted if necessary. But we expect our stated clerks to 
see to it that these Acts or minutes are on hand. In former days, and 
this is still true for the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands today, 
the Churches preferred to leave such matters to particular Churches, 
rather than to individuals. Stated clerks might assume too much 
authority. Our fathers had seen and suffered much in the Roman 


200 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Church at the hands of individuals who were wrongfully entrusted 
with superior authority and who abused their authority fearfully. 
Our forebears always avoided that which was or might lead to the 
centralization of authority in individuals. They avoided this not only 
from practical considerations but also because they believed that the 
Churches should be governed by the Churches, through the office- 
bearers acting, not as individuals, but as organized groups, i.e., the 
Consistories. As we have said before, in the interest of efficiency, we 
have appointed stated clerks. But let these brethren watch their step 
and do no more than has been assigned to them. Let them shun all 
assumption of authority. Let us also remember that Article 45 con- 
tinues to be in force. The convening and entertaining Church may 
rely on the stated clerk for the execution of this provision but the 
Church continues to be responsible. 

3. The matter of ecclesiastical archives. 

In connection with the foregoing we call attention to the subject of 
our ecclesiastical archives. Each Church should preserve all papers, 
documents and books or booklets which have bearing on its origin 
and history. This would include first of all the consistorial minute 
books and all legal documents, as well as membership records, reports, 
etc. But any booklets, articles, or papers which have or may have 
historical significance should be included. Many Churches have been 
negligent on this score so that the historical origin of some Churches 
is hardly known. Some Churches do not even have all their old minute 
books. Through neglect they have been lost. It is a good thing that 
the Rules for Church Visitors also contain a question regarding the 
archives of the Churches visited. Every Church should have a fire- 
proof repository where all valuable books and papers can be safely 
kept. All of our Churches, especially our larger ones, should appoint 
one of the Consistory members to act as archivist, whose duty it is 
to keep the archive in good order and up-to-date. 

The classical archives should contain all valuable papers, reports, 
historical data, minute books, synodical Acts, etc. Each Classis should 
ask one of its Churches to keep the classical archive. And when the 
Church Visitors call they should make it a point to inquire after the 
management and state of this classical archive. They should report 
their findings to Classis. 

Synod should likewise request a competent Church to keep the 
synodical archive. This synodical archive should again not only in- 
clude all official documents and Acts, but also books, booklets, papers 
of a historical nature and dealing more or less directly with the origin 
and history of our denomination. To a certain extent the matter here 
referred to is covered by the Historical Committee which Synod of 
1934 appointed and which it charged “to gather and preserve books 
and documents of historical value pertaining to the history of our 
Church and the Church from which we originated and to religion in 
general, and to provide a room and facilities in the College or Sem- 
inary building where they can be properly preserved and displayed.” * 

But this decision does not provide for the safekeeping of official 
documents. Acts of Synod, etc. Nor will that which is gathered by 
the Historical Committee be kept in a fire-proof vault. It would not 
be needless duplication if some Church were asked and authorized to 
secure a fire-proof vault in which the Consistory of that Church would 


* Acts of Synod. 1934, p. 81. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


201 


keep the archives of Synod. The large, cosmopolitan Church of Ams- 
terdam has acted as Archivist for the Reformed Churches of the 
Netherlands for many years. The Synod Zwolle, 1911, authorized this 
Church to build a special fire-proof vault, as we suggest above. 


ARTICLE XLVI. 

Instructions concerning matters to be considered in major 
assemblies shall not be written until the decision of previous 
Synods touching these matters have been ready in order that 
what was once decided be not again proposed, unless a revision 
be deemed 'necessary . 

READING OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS 

1. Historical origin of this article. 

Just as Article 45, so also this article finds its origin in the fact 
that formerly printing was far less common than it is now. Printing 
was indeed discovered during the early part of the 15th century, but 
it was at first a very expensive enterprise. The Reformation Churches 
could not afford to print the Acts of their major assemblies for wide 
distribution. They had to do the next best thing. The clerks of the 
assemblies, so we are told, would read the decisions of the meeting, 
and then the delegates would copy them. Consequently, only a few 
men or Churches would be in possession of a complete set of Acts of 
Synod. The result was that many Churches would come with ques- 
tions and matters at their Classes to be presented to Synod which had 
already been acted upon. The Classes were not always aware of this 
fact and so duplication and reduplication resulted. To avoid this evil 
the Synod of Emden, 1571, decided that the decisions of previous 
Synods should be read (at classical gatherings) before any matters 
were sent on to Synod. 

The Act of the first few Synods were not so elaborate and bulky 
that the provision of Article 46 could not be carried out. Even the 
great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, maintained this article as to its original 
intent. The decisions of previous Synods had to be read at classical 
gatherings at which matters for the synodical assemblies were con- 
sidered. As time progressed the instruction of Article 46 became well 
nigh impossible of execution and also less necessary, for printing be- 
came more common and synodical decisions became very numerous. 
And so the Reformed Churches of Holland in their redaction of Article 
46, approved in 1905, changed the article so that it requires only the 
reading of those previous synodical decisions which have a direct 
bearing on the matter which is being considered for the synodical 
agenda. And the reading of these previous synodical decisions is now 
generally left to the individuals or Churches which bring matter to 
Classis for Synod. 

2. Present significance of Article 46. 

In the first place Article 46 stresses the fact for us that we should 
be well informed regarding synodical decisions in order that we may 
help to avoid needless repetition. In the second place, mattera once 
decided upon must not be raised again unless there is a good reason 
for doing so. The time of our major assemblies is too precious to be 


202 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


spent needlessly. Furthermore, the Churches lose confidence in their 
major assemblies if these constantly change their decisions. Constant 
reconsideration and constant change reveals a certain ignorance re- 
garding principles and issues involved and it undermines the stability 
of our church life. Decisions are not taken seriously when changes 
are constantly made. In the third place, Article 46 clearly indicates 
that matter previously acted upon may be resubmitted if this is 
deemed necessary. Our assemblies are not infallible. Errors are 
sometimes made. And erroneous decisions should be changed as soon 
as possible. Let us remember, however, that we should proceed with 
wisdom and care. As much as in us lies, we should avoid disturbance 
and confusion. The truth of God must always prevail, come what may. 
But changes in methods and plans not directly drawn from and dic- 
tated by the Word should be made cautiously and upon due considera- 
tion. 

3. Various ways in which matters may be brought before 
major assemblies. 

The present article speaks of instructions to be considered in major 
assemblies. One way in which matter can be presented to major as- 
semblies is therefore by means of instructions. Delegates to our major 
assemblies (Classes or Synods) can take an active part in the gather- 
ings because they have been instructed to do so. Their Consistories 
or Classes have sent them. These bodies do not instruct their delegates 
specifically, telling them just what to say and just how to vote. That 
would even be impossible for the delegating Churches do not know 
beforehand all the matters that will be presented. Besides, it would 
be harmful to instruct delegates just what to say and how to vote 
even if this were possible as we have indicated in our consideration 
of Article 33. But each delegating body does have the right to in- 
struct its delegates to present certain information, suggestions or 
overtures to the assembly. These matters should be written on the 
letters of credence or accompany the letter of credence in written 
form, properly signed. By means of these instructions matters may 
therefore be presented to major assemblies. 

In the second place, matters may come up for consideration at our 
classical gatherings through the avenue of Article 41. This article 
provides for what the Dutch call “de rondvraag.” According to Article 
41 the president of Classis must put the questions indicated in this 
article to all the delegates. By means of this general inquiry, matters 
may therefore be brought before Classis, particularly in response to 
the question: “Do you need the judgment and help of the Classis for 
the proper government of your Church? 

In the third place, matters may be presented to our major assem- 
blies by way of appeal. (Cf. Art. 31.) Reformed Church polity au- 
thorities do not make a sharp distinction between a protest and an 
appeal, nor between a grievance and a complaint. Neither are these 
distinguished in the Church Order. In civil courts technical terms and 
technical interpretation of terms means a great deal. But in the 
Church of God we are first of all interested in the matter as such. 
We stress spirit and content, not terms and technicalities. In general 
it may be said that an appeal is made regarding the decision of a 
minor assembly to a major assembly. The term protest would most 
naturally apply first of all to a verbal or written notice of vigorous 
disagreement with a decision of any assembly, which notice is deliv- 
ered as soon as possible after the decision has been made and while 
the assembly is still in session. But the terms appeal and protest are 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


203 


also used interchangeably. A grievance or complaint is a written ex- 
pression of dissatisfaction with the decision of a Consistory, Classis, 
or Synod, with the request that the assumed wrong be righted. The 
word grievance seems to imply that the conscience of the aggrieved 
person or body is burdened. The word complaint seems to imply that 
an injustice has been committed from which the complainant seeks 
relief. The Dutch speak of “bezwaar-schrifti” and “aanklacht.” 

In the fourth place, matters may come up for consideration law- 
fully at our assemblies through motions formulated and presented 
right on the floor of the assembly and suggested by the need of the 
hour and growing out of discussions of matters presented to the gath- 
ering. It stands to reason that no Classis or Synod should act rashly 
in its consideration of matters which have not appeared upon the 
previously published agenda. Weighty matters, especially, should not 
be acted upon with overly much haste, but rather held in abeyance so 
that there may be time for study and consideration. 

In this connection we would remark in the first place, that all ques- 
tions and matters brought to major assemblies should concern definite 
problems. If there is no specific instance — sometimes called “con- 
crete case” from the Dutch “concreet geval” — no question or problem 
should be presented to Classis or Synod. One major gathering can 
not begin to consider abstract and theoretical problems. Time would 
fail them utterly and the consideration of abstract problems, though 
very good in itself, is not the task of our ecclesiastical assemblies as 
such. A Classes or Synod is no question box. And it should also be 
remembered that specific instances should be presented as such. That 
is to say, no one should come to a Classis or Synod with questions or 
problems, phrased in general terms, expecting a general ruling of 
the major assembly, even though there be a specific instance which 
occasions the presentation of the question. Specific instances should 
be presented as specific instances and acted upon as specific instances. 

Secondly it should be noted that ordinarily matters come to our 
major assemblies through and from our minor assemblies, either 
Consistories or Classes. However, individual members may go directly 
to Classis or Synod. Of course, if the matter be an appeal, protest, 
grievance, or complaint, the assemblies concerned should be previously 
informed a reasonable length of time previous to the gathering to 
which the appeal is made. The body concerned should receive an exact 
copy of the document going to the major gathering in order that it 
may still have opportunity to settle matters or to prepare an explana- 
tion and defense. Furthermore, every individual member, man or 
woman, of our Churches may address a request to Classis or Synod, 
petitioning certain actions or decisions if the matter concerns “the 
Churches of the major assembly in common.” (Cf. Art. 30.) 

In the third place, major assemblies may refer matters which come 
up for consideration, to the minor assemblies for their deliberation 
and reaction. But they need not do this. Often it is a wise policy to 
follow. But sometimes this method is unnecessary. Sometimes there 
is danger in delay and safety in immediate action. 

Formerly it was not customary to send the agenda for major as- 
semblies to minor assemblies. Only committees appointed at a former 
meeting to study difficult matters and to suggest a solution would 
send their findings and their advice to the minor assemblies previous 
to the gathering of major assemblies. As far as possible we now 
send the complete agenda to all Consistories. In fact, one copy of the 
synodical agenda, as well as a copy of the later Acts, is sent for each 
Consistory member. This is a commendable custom. It promotes a 


204 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


thorough knowledge of, and a lively interest in the affairs of the 
Churches. Let all Consistory members diligently read these docu- 
ments! And let the minor assemblies take time to discuss the agenda. 

Reports of standing committees, usually called boards, should also 
be presented to the minor assemblies. When this is not done it is far 
more difficult to follow and to control the 'work of these bodies. 


ARTICLE XLVII. 

(Every year [or if need be oftener ] fowr or five or more 
neighboring Classes shall meet as a Particular Synod, to which 
each Classis shall delegate two Ministers and two Elders. At 
the close of both the Particular and the General Synod, sortie 
Church shall be empowered to determine with advice of Classis , 
the time and place of the next Synod.) 

PARTICULAR SYNODS 

Article 47, as well as Article 48 and Article 49, is found between 
parentheses in the Church Order. This was done because we do not 
yet have Particular Synods, and all of these articles refer, in the first 
place, to Particular Synods. And yet, sooner or later, we may find that 
we should begin to meet as Particular Synods. Particular Synods will 
be held as soon as conditions warrant and require their institution. 
Consequently these articles have been retained in our redaction of 
the Church Order of Dort, but we have placed them between paren- 
theses for the time being. 

1. The origin of Particular Synods. 

The Convention of Wezel, 1568, already advised the institution of 
Particular Synods. And the first Synod of the Reformed Churches of 
Holland, Emden, 1571, decided that three such Particular Synods 
should be organized. At this time the Churches were still badly 
persecuted. Many of the Reformed believers had taken refuge to 
Germany and England. So the Synod of Emden decided that three 
Particular Synods should be organized: one in Germany, one in Eng- 
land, and one in the Netherlands itself. 

However, from 1572 on the cause of the Reformation was carried 
forward by long strides, and greater measures of liberty were acquired 
so that large numbers of refugees soon returned to the home-land. 
Consequently the Synod of Dort, 1578, finding that the Churches were 
already gathering together in Particular Synods, regulated matters as 
follows: Each Particular Synod was to consist of four or five Classes. 
Two Ministers and two Elders were to be delegated from each Classis. 
Ministers and Elders not delegated were permitted to be present at 
the gatherings of the Particular Synods as guests, but they did not 
receive a decisive vote. Each Particular Synod should designate one 
of the Churches of its group to summon the next meeting of the Par- 
ticular Synod, but this summoning was not to take place without 
advice of the Classis to which this summoning Church belonged. Each 
Particular Synod was to meet annually unless circumstances required 
the Synod to meet oftener. 

These stipulations of the Synod of 1578 were subsequently gath- 
ered into one article and remained unchanged for the Reformed 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


205 


Churches of Holland until 1905, when it was stipulated that the con- 
fines of the Particular Synods should, with minor exceptions, coincide 
with the confines of the various geographical provinces. Our redaction 
of 1914, however, left the 47th article as it has been for more than 
three centuries. Our situation did not require a change. 

2. Character of Particular Synods. 

Article 47 makes it plain that Synods are gatherings of Classes 
and not gatherings of persons. From this follows that every Synod is 
a gathering of Churches and not a gathering of men who constitute a 
ruling body in or over the Churches. True, Synods are further re- 
moved from the particular Churches than the Classes are. But they 
are nevertheless definitely gatherings of Churches. At Consistories all 
the Ministers and Elders (and Deacons) meet. At Classis only two 
Consistory members for each Church meet, but every Church is never- 
the less represented directly. At Particular Synods all the Churches 
of every Classes are represented, but the majority of the Churches will 
be represented indirectly, through a limited number of Ministers and 
Elders chosen by the Churches at the various Classes. Synods are 
therefore further removed from the particular Churches than Classes 
are. The representation at Synods is less direct, and their task is 
more limited. 

3. Delegation to Particular Synods. 

Each Classis delegates an equal number of delegates. The larger 
Classes have no more representatives than do the smaller Classes. The 
same principle which operates in the matter of delegating to Classes 
operates here also, although in this instance it is more a matter of 
orderly procedure than of principle. For the particular Church is the 
unit of denominational federation and unity. This fact certainly de- 
mands that each Church be represented at Classes by an equal 
number of delegates, but it cannot be said that this fact also demands 
that every Classis, large or small, shall be represented by an equal 
number of delegates at our Synods. But for reasons of good order and 
regularity it is very desirable that all Classes or Particular Synods 
delegate the same number of men. Overly large Classes should be 
subdivided into smaller Classes. This makes for better work and at 
the same time assures the Churches of these Classes of an equitable 
representation at major assemblies. 

Article 47 stipulates that two Ministers and two Elders shall be 
delegated by each Classes to the Particular Synods. If ever our 
Churches decide to establish Particular Synods these articles which 
pertain to such Synod will doubtlessly be carefully reviewed. In all 
likelihood some changes will have to be made, particularly as to the 
number of delegates which each Classis would send. Some Particular 
Synod would consist of but three Classes perhaps. Such Synods would 
then number but 12 delegates. This number would be needlessly and 
undesirably small. The Reformed Churches of Holland have revised 
the article in 1905 so that small Particular Synods numbering only 
three or four Classes may send three Ministers and three Elders each. 

Delegates to Particular and General Synods should be chosen by 
ballot. They should never be sent according to some mechanical plan, 
for example, alphabetical order. Rotational delegation of Elders to 
Classes has very much in its favor, but synodical meetings are of such 
importance that those who are providentially most able and experi- 
enced should be sent. 


206 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


4. Frequency of Particular Synods. 

From the beginning', the Reformed Churches maintained annual 
Particular Synods and they would meet more than once a year if such 
appeared to be necessary. However, in a few instances prior to the 
great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, the government interfered with the 
regular summoning of Synods so that the Particular Synods did not 
meet for a number of years in some sections of Holland. In fact for 
a number of years the Churches were prevented from holding General 
Synods. This prevention was due to political conditions and to the 
Arminian sympathies and convictions of some governmental authori- 
ties who had to give consent at that time. 

Ordinarily annual meetings of Particular Synods should be enough. 
But extraordinary circumstances may demand extraordinary sessions. 
For this reason the article states: “or if need be oftener.” 

5. The summoning of Particular Synods, and their order of pro- 
cedure. 

Regarding the calling together of Synods Article 47 says: “At the 
close of both the Particular and the General Synod, some church shall 
be empowered to determine with advice of Classis, the time and place 
of the next Synod.” The precise time and place of our Synods is 
therefore to be determined, according to this article, by the calling or 
summoning Church in consultation with its sister Churches through 
Classis. 

As to the method of procedure, the president of the former Synod — 
Particular or General, whichever the case may be — calls the meeting 
together at the appointed place and hour, or the Minister (one of the 
Ministers appointed by the Consistory for this work) of the summon- 
ing Church does this. It is more in keeping with the principles 
governing Reformed church polity that the summoning Church open 
the sessions of a Synod than that the president of a former Synod 
should do this. 

How are synodical gatherings to be opened? Usually the leader 
calls upon the assembly to sing an appropriate psalm or hymn; then 
he reads a passage from the Bible after which he leads in prayer, ask- 
ing for God’s guidance for the election of directors and for all the 
activities of the Synod. The temporary president then calls for the 
credentials. These being examined and found satisfactory the dele- 
gates are acknowledged as such and he declares the meeting legally 
constituted. Then the assembly proceeds to elect a president, clerk, 
etc. The appointment of directors for our Synod always takes place 
by ballot. Nominations and nominating addresses are unknown in 
these gatherings. Nominations are not necessary inasmuch as the 
leaders are sufficiently known to those delegated so that they can vote 
intelligently from them. Free balloting safeguards us from certain 
dangers which are apt to attend nominations and nominating speeches. 

When the directors have been chosen and seated, so Jansen advises*, 
the president should first of all present doctrinal matters; then mat- 
ters which concern government and discipline; and then various other 
matters that may require action. No doubt this is the logical order, 
the order of importance. 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc., p. 212. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


207 


ARTICLE XLVIII 

(Each Synod shall be at liberty to solicit and hold correspond- 
ence with its neighboring S'ynod or Synods in such manner as 
they shall judge most conducive to general edification.) 

INTER-SYNODICAL CONTACTS 

This article, like the preceding and the following article of our 
Church Order, apply to Particular Synods. At this writing we have 
as yet not organized Particular Synods. They may not be organized 
for a long time to come. However, with a view to the possible future 
organization of Particular Synods, these articles 47 to 49, as has been 
pointed out previously, have been left in our Church Order. And for 
the sake of completeness we consider their significance in this com- 
mentary. 

1. The historical origin and significance of this article. 

The Churches of Holland did not feel the need of correspondence 
between neighboring Synods as long as the General Synod would meet 
regularly. But after the year 1586, for a long period of time, the 
General Synod did not meet regularly. This, as has been explained 
before, was due to interference of the government. Certain gov- 
ernment officials were afraid that the Church would exert and develop 
too much power and influence and so they refused to authorize the 
gatherings of General Synods. The Churches being closely allied to 
the government at that time were helpless. This situation prevented 
the Churches from conferring with each other on various questions 
and from taking united action. To meet this condition somewhat the 
Particular Synods, usually called Provincial Synods in the Nether- 
lands, began to send representatives to each other’s meetings. The 
first step to initiate what the Church Order in this article calls “cor- 
respondence,” was taken in 1593 by the Particular Synod of South 
Holland. This Synod sent two of its Ministers to the Particular 
Synod of North Holland. 

Within a few years the custom became well-nigh general. All the 
Particular Synods of the Netherlands were sending representatives to 
each other’s meetings except those of Drenthe and Zeeland. The civil 
authorities of the latter province prevented the Churches of Zeeland 
from establishing these contacts with neighboring Particular Synods. 

Now the General Synod of 1618-19— finally permitted and called to- 
gether by the civil government because of the Arminian troubles — 
regulated this custom of “correspondence” between Particular Synods, 
and read Article 48 into the Church Order. 

The purpose of this correspondence, as may be noted from what 
has just been said, is to promote the necessary unity and cooperation 
between the various Churches. Thus the Churches made important 
agreements and took united action even while no General Synods were 
held. By means of these inter-synodical contacts, for example, the 
Churches agreed that students should not be admitted to the Ministry 
until after they had finished their course and passed their examina- 
tions. Thus the Churches also promoted the translation of the Bible. 
Furthermore, they took steps through this method of correspondence 
to stop the printing of undesirable books, and by means of this inter- 
synodical “correspondence” a new metrical version of the Psalms was 
introduced in 1775. 


208 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


2. The manner of maintaining inter-synodical contacts. 

Article 48 states that: “Each Synod shall be at liberty to solicit and 
hold correspondence with its neighboring Synod or Synods.” The term 
“hold correspondence” is a literal translation of the Dutch “cor- 
respondentie te houden.” But our English word “correspondence” as 
used in Article 48 instantly makes us think of communication by 
letter or written statements sent by mail. However, the “cor- 
respondence” referred to was always carried out by means of repre- 
sentatives who were charged to attend the meetings of neighboring 
Particular Synods in person. 

Clearly it was not the intention of our church fathers of 1618-19 
that this correspondence should be carried on by means of letters 
sent The term should therefore be given a broad interpretation. 

Inter-synodical contacts and conference may be established and 
maintained by letters, for the article states very clearly that this 
correspondence shall be maintained “in such manner as they shall 
judge most conducive to general edification.” But from the very be- 
ginning representatives were sent and delegated. Doubtlessly this is 
by far the most effective and satisfactory method. 

3. Present significance of this article. 

The Churches in the Netherlands find that there is no great need 
for the maintenance of this correspondence between their various 
Particular Synods. Regarding some matters, such as boundary line 
questions and united mission activity, the provision of Article 48 is 
useful. For the rest, so it is claimed, now that General Synod rgain 
meets regularly all matters of general concern can be duly acte-i upon 
at the General Synods. 

Some of our neighboring Classes send representatives or “fraternal 
delegates,” as they are called, to each other’s meetings. This is 
doubtlessly a good and beneficial custom and finds justification in this 
ruling of the Church Order pertaining to Particular Synods. Per- 
haps there should be more correspondence between our various 
Classes since we have no Particular Synods and since there is danger 
that we drift away from each other. We need to strengthen each 
other’s hands and to cooperate in common interests. 

In this connection it is well to call to mind that some of our Classes 
have their own particular background and history. For example, 
Classis Ostfriesland has a German background and for years used 
the German language at its meetings. Classis Hackensack, while part 
of our denomination, has always spoken the English language and has 
an altogether different historical background from the rest of our 
denomination which is almost exclusively Dutch in origin. These dif- 
ferences make for difference of viewpoint and emphasis. 

Then it should also be remembered that our Churches are found 
in various localities and surroundings. Some of our Classes are com- 
posed of coastal Churches; others of inland Churches. Some are found 
in the East; others in the West. Some are largely urban in spirit 
and viewpoint others largely rural. Now our surroundings and parti- 
cular circumstances of life have a tendency to incline us in certain 
directions and mould us in our thinking. Correspondence between our 
various Classes would help to maintain our unity and to promote a 
greater measure of unity. And by means of correspondence we could 
constantly learn from one another. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


209 


ARTICLE XLIX 

{Each Synod shall delegate some to execute everything or- 
dained by Synod both as to what pertains to the Government 
and to the respective Classes, resorting under it, and likewise to 
supervise together or in smaller member all examinations of fu- 
ture Ministers. And, moreover, in all other eventual difficulties 
they shall extend help to the Classes in order that proper unity, 
order, a/nd soundness of doctrine may be maintained and estab- 
lished. Also they shall keep proper record of all their actions 
to report thereof to Synod, and if it be demanded, give reasons. 
They shall also not be discharged from their service before and 
untU Synod itself discharges them.) 

SYNODICAL COMMITTEES 

Article 49, as well as the two preceding articles, is found in paren- 
theses in our Church Order. As has been explained, Articles 47, 48, 
and 49 have reference to Particular Synods. Our Churches have up to 
this time refrained from organizing Particular Synods and consequent- 
ly these three articles are not fully in force among us. We say that 
these articles are not fully in force among us. For these rulings 
are expressive of certain principles and policies which are in force as 
far as our Classes and Synods are concerned. This is particularly true 
for Article 49. 

1. The nature of synodical committees. 

Synodical committees consist of two or more men which have been 
delegated by a synod “to execute everything ordained by Synod,” or 
to perform a special task which Synod could not itself perform. 
Synodical committee-men are therefore deputies of Synod, brethren 
that have been delegated to perform a special task in the name of all 
the Churches represented by the Synod concerned. They are men, as 
the word itself would indicate, to whom a special charge has been 
committed. The expression, synodical delegates, would have much in 
its favor, but we speak invariably of those who represent the Churches 
at Synod as delegates. Consequently to apply the term “Synodical 
Delegates” to those who are deputized by a Synod for the performance 
of a specific task would make for confusion. The Reformed Churches 
in Holland use the term “Synodale Deputaten,” Synodical Deputies. 
This term would be unobjectionable in itself, but the word deputy or 
deputies is never used for ecclesiastical committees in our land. On 
the other hand the term “committee” is often used. And whereas 
this word is appropriate, in its implied meaning, we prefer to use the 
term Synodical Committees. 

The very first regular Synod, Emden, 1571, already decided to ap- 
point two Synodical Committees. One, consisting of two members, to 
represent the Churches of Holland at the Synod of the Reformed 
Churches in France; another, consisting of 16 members, to assist 
Mamix of St. Aldegonde in the gathering of historical data relative 
to the Reformation. 

But Synodical Committees were not mentioned in the Church Order, 
by way of special article, until the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, met. 
Article 49 was incorporated into the Church Order by this Synod. 
Doubtless this Synod did so in order to help regulate an institution 
which was filling a real need and a worthy place in the various Parti- 


210 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


cular Synods, but which was not altogether without dangers. Hugo 
Grotius for one charged that the “Synodical Deputies” were taking the 
place of the Synods while these were not in session and that these 
Committees were invested with power to rule. At any rate the Synod 
of Dort clearly regulated the matter of Synodical Committees, indi- 
cating their task and in so doing also limiting their rights and powers. 
As the article was originally drafted it applied only to Particular 
Synods. The Churches seemingly did not find it necessary at first to 
appoint Synodical Committees for the General Synods. But eventually 
the article was also applied to General Synods in Holland. In the 
year 1905 the Churches of Holland so revised the article that it applies 
to the General Synods as well as to the Particular Synods. In the 
Church Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands Article 
49 now reads as follows: 

“Each Synod shall deputize some to execute everything ordained by 
Synod and to offer their assistance to the Classes in eventual difficul- 
ties; as much as possible separate groups of delegates shall be ap- 
pointed for the various interests. At least two or three deputies shall 
supervise the peremptoir (decisive or final) examinations of future 
Ministers. All these deputies shall keep a good record of all their 
activities in order to report to Synod and in order to give reasons for 
their actions, if such be demanded. They shall also not be discharged 
from their service before and until Synod itself discharges them.” 

This revision of Article 49 differs in some respect from Article 49 in 
our Church Order. In our Church Order Article 49 refers in form 
only to Particular Synods. In the Holland Church Order the article 
applies to both Particular and General Synods. In our Church Order 
Article 49 speaks of one committee charged to do many and various 
things. The Holland Church Order now specifies that a separate 
Synodical Committee shall be appointed for each matter requiring at- 
tention. No doubt the Holland rendering of 1905 is an improvement 
over the old rule. Increased labors demand more than one committee. 
Moreover, one committee charged to do all that requires attention 
and action might assume power and thus foster the evils of 
hierarchism. 

2. The specific charge and limited authority of synodical committees. 

Synodical Committees, likewise Classical Committees, should be 
selected with due consideration. Those who are best qualified in the 
providence of God should be appointed. Appointment should be by 
ballot or by selection of the synodical officers or upon nomination by 
a nominating committee. 

Those who are appointed to serve on a Synodical Committee (or 
Classical Committee) need not be delegates to the body making the 
appointment, although sometimes this may be advisable. Neither need 
appointees always be officer-bearers. Sometimes the matter at hand 
may require the knowledge and experience of experts such as physi- 
cians, lawyers, etc. Then these experts should be appointed though 
they may not be office-bearers. Needless to say however, only those 
who are in hearty accord with our Reformed conceptions should ever 
be appointed to serve on committees. Only in exceptional cases and 
when need requires would a Synod ask one outside of our own Chris- 
tian Reformed Churches to serve on a Synodical Committee. 

As far as permanent or standing Synodical Committees are con- 
cerned, some of which are called boards, periodic retirements may be 
encouraged to counteract the danger of hierarchism, provided the 
cause at hand would not be required to suffer. Certain causes need a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


211 


large measure of permanency for efficient and thorough work. So, for 
example, a constant shift in the membership of our committees for the 
mission work of our Churches and for Calvin College and Seminary, 
(Christian Reformed Boards of Missions and Board of Trustees of 
Calvin College and Seminary) would be to the detriment of these 
causes. 

Article 49 as we find it in our Church Order specifies that the one 
Synodical Committee which it calls for shall “execute everything or- 
dained by Synod both as to what pertains to the government and to 
the respective Classes, resorting under it . . .” The 1905 revision of 
this article by the Reformed Churches of Holland, as may be noted 
from our translation of this revision just given, merely reads: “Each 
Synod shall deputize some to execute everything ordained by Synod.” 
This is a good change. Why single out matters which concern the 
civil government and the Classes? Our reading, dating back to 1618- 
19, is too specific and exclusive. 

Regarding the provision, “And, moreover, in all other eventual dif- 
ficulties they shall extend help to the Classes . . .”, it may be remarked 
our Synods do not appoint a committee to assist a Classes in the set- 
tlement of any difficulty unless Synod is asked to do so by the Classis 
concerned, except it be in answer to an appeal by an individual mem- 
ber or Church. 

Matters which require the presence and advice of Synodical Com- 
mittees are such as are mentioned in Article 11 (Dismissal from active 
service), and Article 79 (Deposition from office). The revision of 
Holland, 1905, eliminated the motivating phrase, “in order that proper 
unity, order, and soundness of doctrine may be maintained and es- 
tablished . . .” No doubt these words were dropped in the interest of 
brevity and because they are in part a duplication of what we find in 
Article 1 of the Church Order. But some matters can bear repetition, 
even in a brief Church Order. Moreover these words definitely indicate 
the purpose for the appointment of synodical committee-men, and at 
the same time this phrase stresses matters which are very vital to 
the Churches. For these reasons we favor the retention of these 
words. 

The examinations of future Ministers which Synodical Delegates 
must supervise according to this article are the decisive, final, or 
classical examinations. In Holland these decisive examinations are 
spoken of as “peremptoire examens”, in distinction from the “praepar- 
atoire examens,” by which latter term the preliminary examinations 
which merely admit one to candidacy for the ministry, are indicated. 

Article 49 states that the Synodical Delegates, often indicated by 
the term “deputaten ad examina,” shall supervise these final ex- 
aminations “together or in smaller number.” Article 4 requires that 
three delegates shall be present. A possible future revision of Article 
49 should be changed to harmonize with Article 4. According to the 
present reading of Article 49 the presence of one Synodical Delegate 
would satisfy the letter of the article. Yet Article 4 calls for three, 
which number, if the usage is filling a necessary place, is none too 
large. (For further details regarding Synodical Delegates see our 
comments on Article 4.) 

As to the authority of Synodical Committees, it should be stressed 
that they are not superintendents ruling with superior power. Not at 
all. They are the servants of the Synod which a^nointed them; they 
have no authority in themselves at all. Their authority is limited to 
that which the Synod has extended to them. Sometimes they are in- 
deed charged to act with Synodical authority, but then only in specific 


212 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


cases, clearly definable. Sometimes the Committees are appointed 
“with power to act” as circumstances may demand, but as stands to 
reason, never upon their own authority, but ever upon the authority 
of the Synod which appointed the committee. Instances in which a 
Synod or Classis gives a Committee “power to act” should be excep- 
tional. As much as possible our assemblies must rule directly and 
not indirectly. 

What should a Synodical Committee do when facing an emergency 
situation? Should the committee act and take important steps and 
then ask the next Synod to approve of its actions? No. Now that 
we have annual Synods situations which are so acute that they cannot 
wait until Synod meets will be very few and far between. But if a 
serious situation arises which cannot be settled by Classis, and which 
cannot wait until Synod, then let the committee advise a special or 
earlier Synod. The following article, Article 50, as revised by the 
Synod of 1936, specifies: “If at least a majority of the Classes deem 
it necessary that the Synod meet either earlier or later than the regu- 
lar time, the local Church charged with convening the Synod shall in 
due season determine when and where it is to meet.” (cf. Acts 1936, 
p. 39) 

Our standing or permanent Committees (Boards) should be very 
careful also not to take any important decisions without synodical 
authorization previously gained. To make important decisions, though 
pressure of circumstances does not require such, and then to ask for 
Synodical approval is to be condemned. Synodical Committees must 
ever remember that they are but delegates, deputies, committees of 
Synod, servants of Synod charged to do that which Synod has dele- 
gated or committed to them. 

If Synod cannot meet at the appointed time, because of an epidemic, 
a war, etc., then the Committees continue to function. They are not 
discharged from service before and until Synod discharges them. 

If a Synodical Committee member finds that he cannot serve, for in- 
stance because of long continued sickness, then he should not resign. 
This he cannot do since the body which appointed him is no longer in 
session. Only the next Synod can discharge him. He should notify 
the other Committee members that he finds it impossible to take an 
active part in the work of the Committee. Furthermore he reports 
his circumstances and actions to the next Synod, which body will ap- 
prove or disapprove of his withdrawal. If a Synod finds that it must 
disapprove the withdrawal of any Committee-man the seriousness and 
clearness of the case will determine whether and in how far the party 
concerned is to be reproved or censured. 


ARTICLE L 

The General Synod shall ordinarily meet annually. Each 
Classis shall delegate two Ministers and two Elders to this 
Synod. If at least a majority of the Classes deem it necessary 
that the Synod meet either earlier or later than the regular 
time, the local Church charged with convening the Synod shall 
in due season determine when and where it is to meet. 

CONCERNING SYNOD 

Article 50 as it now reads is the product of Synod 1936. At this 
Synod it was decided to hold annual Synods instead of bi-annual 


213 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

Synods, and that two Ministers and two Elders should be delegated 
from each Classis instead of three Ministers and three Elders from 
each Classis, as it had been before 1936. 

1. Frequency of synodical gatherings. 

Article 50 speaks of “General” Synod. This term is used in view of 
the fact that the Church Order recognizes two types of Synods: Par- 
ticular and General. As has been noted before, our Churches have not 
yet introduced Particular Synods inasmuch as our denomination is too 
small to warrant their introduction. But the articles which refer to 
Particular Synods have been retained in the revised Church Order 
because Particular Synods are a part of every normal Reformed church 
organization, and the time may come that we will feel called upon to 
introduce them. Thus, in distinction from Particular Synods covered 
by Articles 47-49, Article 50 uses the expression “General Synod.” 
But inasmuch as we have no Particular Synods we never refer to our 
Synods as General Synods, but merely speak of them as Synods. 

As noted, Synod of 1936 decided that thenceforth Synod should meet 
annually. Synod made this change from bi-annual to annual meetings 
in response to an overture from Classis Sioux Center, and upon the 
following considerations : 

a. This is in accordance with the spirit of the Church Order, which 
favors frequent meetings, Articles 37, 41, 47. 

b. This will make for shorter meetings of Synod. Our Synods at 
present are too long. Delegates complain that it is difficult for 
them to be away from their work for so long a time. 

c. This will expedite matters in cases of protests and appeals. 

d. This will open the way for a reduction in the membership of 
our Boards. 

e. This will promote contact between the various parts of our 
Church, which is in harmony with the spirit of the Church Order.” 

The Reformed Churches in Holland, our mother Churches, originally 
desired an Annual General Synod, so Jansen informs us.* But dis- 
turbed civil conditions and government interferences prevented the 
realization of this ideal. Today the Reformed Churches of the low- 
lands meet annually through their several Particular Synods but only 
tri-annually in General Synod. 

Nevertheless, some of the leading authorities in Holland advocate 
annual General Synods. Their motives for favoring annual General 
Synods harmonize pretty well with the consideration which moved our 
Synod of 1936 to introduce Annual Synods.** 

It is also worthy of note that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland 
and in our own U. S. A. all meet in General Assembly each year. The 
Reformed Churches of Hungary and France likewise have annual Gen- 
eral Synods.*** 

At the Synod of 1936, and again in 1938, overtures to return to bi- 
annual Synods were rejected. It is still too early to say at this time 
how many actual gains will be harvested by the change from bi- 
annual to annual Synods. But this is sure, there is not enough con- 
tact between the various sections of our denomination. The fact that 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlagr, etc., p. 223; cf. also Bouwman, Gter. Xerk- 
recht, Vol. II. p. 199. 

** cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., p. 223; Bouwman: G>er. Xerkr., Vol. 
II, p. 200, 201; Voetius and Dr. A. Kuiper favored annual Synods. Cf. 
Idem — more recently, 1938, Dr. H. H. Kuiper championed the cause of an- 
nual Synods in 3>e Heraut. 

*•* Bouwman: Oer. Xerkr., Vol. II, p. 199. 


214 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


our Churches are scattered over a large geographical area makes it 
very difficult for us to know and to help each other properly. Yet we 
are one and we need each other. And perhaps for a while to come 
Particular Synods will be out of the question. It may therefore be 
expected, considering all angles involved, that the test of years will 
reveal that the merits of Annual Synods far outweighs their demerits. 

2. Delegates to Synod. 

Synod of 1936 also decided that two Ministers and two Elders should 
from then on represent each Classis at Synod. This decision was 
taken in view of the fact that Synod was to meet annually. This re- 
duction in the number of delegates would help to reduce the increased 
expenses, which the change from bi-annual to annual Synods would oc- 
casion, considerably. Moreover, Synod of 1936 was fully aware of 
the fact that some Classes were far too large for their own good and 
that there was a growing demand for a redistricting of the Classes. 
This Synod took steps to adjust that which required adjusting. In 
1937 three additional Classes were called into existence. This im- 
minent increase in the number of Classes, also helped Synod of 1936 
to decide that from thenceforth each Classis should send four dele- 
gates instead of six. 

How should delegates to Synod be appointed? By ballot. Some 
Classes have introduced the so-called rotary system, appointing the 
ministerial delegates in alphabetical order. But this is out of harmony 
with Article 41 which specifies that “delegates shall be chosen to at- 
tend said Synod.” Classes should send their best qualified men. Con- 
sequently the Classes should not be hampered by any written or un- 
written rule in their selection of delegates to Synod, and far less 
should delegates be sent in rotation. 

The spring session of Classis Pella (March 22, 1938) overtured the 
Synod of 1938 to adopt the following resolution: 

“Synod of 1938, having taken note of the fact that more than one 
Classis has adopted the practice of delegating its ministerial dele- 
gates to Synod according to the rotation plan, hereby issues a word of 
serious warning against the dangers involved in this method of dele- 
gation to Synod, and declares that this method of delegation is not in 
accord with the genius and letter of our Church Order (cf. Art. 41), 
and furthermore resolves to urge all the Classes to send its delegates 
to Synod only by choice of ballot.” 

Synod did not adopt this suggested resolution, but accepted the fol- 
lowing recommendation of its Advisory Committee instead: “Synod 
declares that there is no warrant in Articles 41 and 50 of the Church 
Order for Synod to enjoin upon the Classes a definite method of se- 
lecting its delegates to Synod but, with a view to the welfare of the 
Churches, it advises against the rotary method of selecting synodical 
delegates.” 

We believe that the proposed resolution of Classis Pella should 
have been adopted rather than the weaker resolution of the Advisory 
Committee. We agree with the sentiment expressed in a report to 
Classis Pella March, 1938. We quote: 

“In the first place we should remember that our synodical gather- 
ings are of vital import. The problems which confront our Synods 
are very crucial: If the decisions made at our Synods are faulty or 
lacking, the very future of our Churches as true Reformed Churches 
will suffer. Everything in the last analysis revolves around and de- 
pends on our Synods: our Mission work, our Theological School and 
College, our discipline, and our doctrinal soundness. Consequently we 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


215 


are agreed, Synod should be composed of the most capable and the 
best qualified men of every Classis. If the work of our Synods con- 
sisted in the main of listening to reports and of approving the same, 
it would be different. But our Synods are deliberative gatherings at 
which all the major questions of the Churches are considered and 
acted upon. This is as it should be. But this also requires our best 
talents. 


“We do not even believe that we should urge constant change of 
delegates to Synod. The ideal would be continuity with change. We 
should not have exactly the same set of delegates constantly — of 
course not. That might make for hierarchism, and a rule by a few. 
But neither should we aim at constant change. Every Synod should 
really have a large number of men who have been to previous Synods, 
and who know by experience how matters should be handled, and 
what the dangers are against which should be guarded. If our Synods 
are largely composed of those who have not attended the previous 
Synod or previous Synods perhaps, then our synodical committees, 
such as the Board of Missions, and the Board of Trustees of Calvin 
College and Seminary will be much stronger than Synod itself. For 
the members of these committees are appointed for two years and 
four years and are often re-elected repeatedly. And it is well. This 
makes for strength and efficiency. But then we should not aim at 
appointing new man as delegates to Synod constantly, purposefully 
passing by well qualified men perchance, simply because they have 
been to the previous Synod. To follow such a policy would weaken 
Synod. Comparatively speaking our boards would be much stronger 
than the body appointing them. And thus by a faulty method of 
delegation we would be fostering the evil of “boardism.” 

We also quote the following from the report referred to above: 

“It is also well to note what leading men in our mother Churches 
in Holland have said regarding the matter of synodical delegation. The 
late Prof. Bouwman of Kampen declared, (Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, 
Vol. II, page 155.) ‘It is not desirable to designate these delegates 
by rotation instead of by balloting. For indeed, not all Ministers 
and Elders are qualified to consider weighty questions of Church 
government. This becomes very evident when very involved problems 
regarding the Confession are to be considered, as was the case at the 
Synod of Dort. For these reasons it is advisable that the best quali- 
fied and most experienced brethren be delegated.’ 

“And Ds. J. Jansen, another outstanding authority in Church gov- 
ernmental matters has the following to say in regard to this matter: 
‘Should delegation take place by balloting or by rotation? From the 
very outset, free election by ballot was the rule. As a result very 
often the same individuals were delegated, because they were the 
most capable. Complaints were sometimes made concerning this 
fact, for example, at the Synod of 1581, Middelburg, at which Synod 
the question was asked, whether it would not be well that the same 
Minister should not be delegated twice in succession, in order that 
the others might also learn. But the Synod replied that the Consis- 
tories, Classes, and Synods should be free to send ‘ “those whom they 
deem to be qualified, . . . ” * Ecclesiastical assemblies are no schools 
of learning and practice but assemblies for government and discipline, 
at which the strongest, men (beste krachten) are needed. And the 
danger of hierarchism is not so great that the advantages of a free 
election should be sacrificed.’” (Korte Varklaring, etc., p. 225-6.) 

God’s Word tells us very clearly that not all office-bearers are tal- 


216 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ented alike. Cf. Rom. 12:6-8 and I Cor. 12:4-11. The various Rifts 
and qualifications should not be iRnored by us as we choose men to 
represent our Churches at Synod. We must be willing” to use the spe- 
cial qualifications which the Spirit has given for special work. 

3. Convening of Synod. 

Article 50 provides for a convening Church. Each previous Synod 
designates a Church which is charged to call together the next Synod. 
This call to Synod is made by the Consistory of the convening Church 
through the official Church papers, three months before the date Synod 
is to meet. This Church is also expected to provide all facilities need- 
ed for the synodical meetings, to make arrangements for the lodging 
of delegates, etc. Expenses incurred by the convening Church are 
paid by Synod. 

When special circumstances arise it may be advisable for Synod to 
meet before the ordinary time, which is the second w ednesday in the 
month of June. Or it is also possible that circumstances make it ad- 
visable for Synod to meet at a later time. General economic distress, 
pestilence, or war, for instance, may make it advisable for Synod not 
to meet at the regular time. Under these special circumstances. 
Article 50, as revised by Synod 1036, provides that Synod may be con- 
vened earlier or later than the regular time “if at least a majority of 
Classes deem it necessary/’ When at least one half of the total num- 
ber of Classes desire an earlier meeting of Synod the convening 
CJhurch, according to the present article, determines in due season 
when and where Synod is to meet. 

4. Procedure at Synod. 

Each Synod is called together by the convening Church, the parti- 
cular Church designated and appointed by the previous Synod, to call 
the next Synod together and to make all the necessary preparations 
for it. The regular time for the opening of the sessions of each Synod 
is 9:30 a. m., on the second Wednesday of June, each year. The presi- 
dent or the vice-president of the previous Synod act" as president pro- 
tem until the directors have been chosen. On the evening before 
Synod begins to meet a Prayer Service is held under the auspices of 
the Consistory of the convening Church. At this service all the dele- 
gates are expected to be present and the president or vice-president 
of the previous Synod administers the Word and leads in prayer. 

Synod of 1934 adopted a revised and elaborated set of “Rules for 
Synodical Procedure for the Christian Reformed Church.” As stands 
to reason, some rules of procedure are necessary for the orderly and 
efficient operation of our smodical gatherings. But we do believe that 
rules of procedure which go into great detail are ant to work harm as 
as well as good. We feel, for instance, that part VI (Rules of Order) 
of the Rules for Synodical Procedure is in many instances too involved 
and too technical. To multiply rules and stipulations for our ecclesias- 
tical gatherings we deem not only needless but also dangerous. At 
our ecclesiastical gatherings we should by all means conduct our busi- 
ness according to the essentials of Reformed church polity, most of 
all as these essentials of Reformed church polity are expressed in our 
Church Order. But for the rest spontaneity and freedom of action 
should be promoted. Multiplication of detailed rules and regulations 
for ecclesiastical assemblies have a binding tendency and are apt to 
turn our gatherings into the direction of mere business meetings, 
whereas we should far rather nromote the larger consideration of the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


217 


spiritual interests of the Churches. And for the due consideration of 
the spiritual interests of our Churches we need a certain amount of 
liberty. Rule upon rule and precept upon precept will have a binding 
and checking effect upon our Synods or Classes as deliberative gather- 
ings and upon the majority of the delegates to these assemblies. When 
rules are multiplied, delegates in many instances will hesitate to take 
the floor for fear of being called to order for transgressing some rule. 
And let us always remember that there is a distinct difference in 
character and aim between a meeting of business directors or a gath- 
ering of civil legislators and a gathering of Churches. Parliamentary 
rules in large numbers may be in place in the former, but at our 
ecclesiastical gatherings they are out of place. 


ARTICLE LI 

The Missionary Work of the Church is regulated by the Gen- 
eral Synod in a Mission Order . 

REGULATION OF MISSION WORK 

Originally Article 51 did not concern the work of missions but 
stipulated that inasmuch as the Churches of the Netherlands — com- 
prising both Belgium and the Netherlands of today — used two dif- 
ferent languages, namely French and Dutch; therefore two groups of 
ecclesiastical gatherings should be maintained. The Dutch speaking 
Churches held their own Consistory meetings, classical gatherings, and 
Particular Synod. The French speaking Churches of the Southern 
Netherlands did likewise. The original Article 61 of the Church Order 
of Dort was out of date by the space of centuries when in 1914 our 
Synod accepted a new redaction of the Church Order. Consequently it 
was eliminated, and in its place the present article regarding mission 
work was written. 

1. The scope and meaning of the phrase: the missionary work of the 
Church. 

This article does not refer to all types of mission work undertaken 
by our Churches. Our Church Order, true to a fundamental princi- 
ple of Reformed church polity, leaves as much liberty to the particular 
Churches as is consistent with the welfare of all the Churches. Thus 
evangelization work undertaken by any particular Church does not fall 
under the regulating authority of the major assemblies. Any Church 
that wishes to carry on gospel work in its own community or nearby 
communities is at full liberty to do so. The particular Churches have 
not agreed to carry on this type of mission work in cooperation with 
the other Churches of the denomination. 

Neither does Article 51 refer to Home Missions or Church Extension 
work. At the time this article was written and adopted, 1914, Home 
Mission activity was under the care of the various Classes, and Synod 
of 1914 did not intimate that this arrangement should be changed in 
view of the adoption of Article 51. Neither has this been contended 
later on. For practical reasons Synod of 1936 adopted a new Home 
Mission Order which placed the home mission and church extension 
work of our Churches under the care and authority of our annual 


218 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Synods, but this action was not based upon the provision of Article 
51, adopted in 1914. 

The term “Missionary Work” in the present article only refers to 
mission work among pagan peoples, such as the American Indians, the 
Chinese, etc. The correctness of this contention becomes clear to all 
when we bear in mind that the article before us is an English trans- 
lation, approved of by Synod 1920, of the original Dutch article 
adopted in 1914. The original article reads: “De arbeid der kerkelijke 
Zending onder de heidenen en Joden wordt door de Generale Synode in 
eene Zendings orde geregeld.” The English translation of this article 
is not as specific as it should have been. But the Dutch original 
clearly tells us what type of Mission work is to be regulated by 
Synod according to this article. 

The expression “of the Church” in this article is singular in form 
but plural in significance. For, as all will grant, the term does not 
refer to any particular or local Church. Neither does it refer to the 
Church of Christ as that term is used in Article 1 of this Church 
Order. It refers to all the Churches of the denomination, thought of 
as one united whole. 

2. The significance of synodical regulation. 

Reformed church polity is a well-balanced system of church govern- 
ment. It seeks to do full justice to the inherent rights of the indi- 
vidual Churches, but it also recognizes the need of co-operation and it 
acknowledges the authority of all the Churches working together 
through major assemblies. 

Essentially every particular Church has the right to carry on mis- 
sion work among pagan peoples. But pagan peoples are as a rule 
at a great distance from the Churches and one Church alone simply 
cannot carry on this all important and beautiful work. The obstacles 
and requirements are so many that individual Churches must cooperate 
in order to do .anything at all as it ought to be done. Consequently 
our Churches have agreed that their mission work should be reflated 
by the synodical gatherings of the Churches. Article 51, let it be clear 
does not say that only the denomination as such has the inherent right 
to carry on mission work. For practical reasons Article 51 stipulates 
that the Churches in general through their Synods will regulate the 
mission work of the Churches. The Churches together can buy and 
sell, manage and supervise as no Church alone can do. For the pro- 
gressive advancement of the work, the systematic occupation of a field, 
and the sound, Biblical establishment of Churches, denominational 
regulation is absolutely necessary. 

But Article 51 does not nullify the rights and duties of particular 
Churches. Neither does it nullify what has been clearly stated and 
regulated in other articles of the Church Order. Thus, for example, 
Article 4 and 5 clearly state that the calling to the ministry pertains 
to the particular or local Churches. The right to call and ordain men 
to the ministry is nowhere attributed to the major assemblies by the 
Church Order. Consequently, no major assembly should call a man to 
the ministry. And if, by common agreement, a Classis or Synod 
designates a Candidate or Minister for any particular work of the 
Gospel ministry, then the actual call should proceed from a particular 
Church. And the relationship between the calling Church and the 
Minister concerned, in case he accepts the call, should be more than 
merely “official.” We should not merely seek to satisfy “the letter of 
the law.” The relationship between congregation and Minister should 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 219 

ever be real, vital, and active. Sham and mere form in matters spir- 
itual and ecclesiastical are killing. 

This latter principle, which we have merely used by way of illus- 
tration, received expression repeatedly. So f.i. Synod of 1912 decided 
that the calling and sending of missionary Ministers is the task of a 
local Church. If, however the circumstances demand it, the calling 
and sending is to be done by a combination of Churches in a manner 
to be determined by these Churches themselves and in comnliance with 
synodical and classical decisions.* Thus also Home Missionaries, un- 
der the Home Mission Order of 1936, are selected by Synod, but called 
by particular Churches. 

The revised Mission Order in which the mission work of our 
Churches is regulated was adopted by the Synod of 1939, and is known 
as: “Mission Order for the Indian and China Missions of the Christian 
Reformed Church.” 


ARTICLE LII 

Inasmuch as different languages are svoken in the Churches , 
the necessary translations shall be made in the ecclesiastical as- 
semblies , arid in the publication of recommendations , instructions 
and decisions. 

DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND OUR ASSEMBLIES 

1. The Dutch original of this article. 

In our original Church Order (1618-19) Articles 51 and 52 regulated 
a situation which arose from the fact that two languages were used 
in the Churches. Some Churches, especially in what is now S. E. Bel- 
gium used the French or Walloon language. The rest, located in 
present day Netherlands and large sections of northern Belgium, used 
the Dutch language. These two groups of Churches, one in faith and 
hope and doctrine and one as to the bloody persecutions experienced 
in many instances, it was agreed, would meet in separate Consistories, 
Classes, and Particular Synods. This matter was regulated in Article 
51 by the Synod of Dort. But the Walloon Churches requested that 
close contacts should be maintained and that Ministers and Elders of 
both groups of Churches, when found in one and the same city, should 
meet together once a month to help and advise each other. The Synod 
of Dort made provision for these combined Consistory meetings in 
Article 52 of the Church Order. 

But eventually contact between these two groups of Reformed 
Churches was lost. Many of the Belgian Churches were utterly de- 
stroyed by the fearful persecutions. Articles 51 and 52 were long 
since obsolete. The Reformed Churches in Holland, in their redaction 
of the Church Order of 1905, substituted an article regulating the 
relationship between the Churches of the Netherlands and the 
Churches consisting of Europeans on the Dutch-East Indies for the 
antiquated 51st article of the original Church Order. And for the 
52nd article these Churches substituted one providing for synodical 
regulation of the mission work of the Churches among the pagans of 
the Dutch East Indies. 


• Schaver’s rendering. Cf. Schaver: Chr. Ref. Church Order, 1937, p. 105. 


220 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Our Synod of 1914, however, found that a situation corresponding 
somewhat to the bi-lingual situation of the Dutch and Walloon 
Churches of former centuries obtained among us. We used both the 
Dutch and the English languages. Consequently, Article 52 was made 
to read: “Inasmuch as different languages are spoken in the Churches, 
the necessary translations shall be made in the ecclesiastical as- 
semblies, and in the publication of recommendations, instructions and 
decisions.” 

2. The significance of this present article. 

Sooner than the brethren of 1914 could have surmised, this new 
Article 51 is also fast becoming obsolete. The World War accentuated 
the use of the English language among us and brought immigration 
from Holland almost to a complete standstill. Consenuently, although 
many of our people still prefer the Dutch and have real difficulty m 
understanding the English language when it concerns ecclesiastical 
and spiritual matters, the numbers of these are fast decreasing. 
Wherever and whenever it may still be necessary Dutch should be 
rendered in English or English in Dutch. That is what the Church 
Order demands. Our people are entitled to this courtesy. And the 
true welfare of our Churches calls for it. 


DOCTRINES, SACRAMENTS AND OTHER CEREMONIES 


ARTICLE LIII 

The Ministers of the Word of God and likewise the Professors 
of Theology ( which also behooves the other Professors and 
School Teachers) shall subscribe to the Three Formulas of 
Unity , namely , the Belgic Confession of Faith , the Heidelberg 
Catechism , and the Cannons of Dordrecht, 1618 - 19 , and the 
Ministers of the Word who refuse to do so shall de facto be 
sus-pended from their office by the Consistory or C las sis until 
they shall have given a full statement, and if they obstinately 
persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office. 

ARTICLE LIV 

Likewise the Elders and Deacons shall subscribe to the afore- 
said Formulas of Unity. 

SIGNING OF FORM OF SUBSCRIPTION BY MINISTERS, 
PROFESSORS, ELDERS, AND DEACONS 

With the consideration of these two articles we have reached the 
third major division of our Church order. Article 1 is introductory. 
It briefly indicates the purpose and content of the Church Order. 
Articles 2 to 28 concern the offices. Articles 29 to 52 cover matters 
regarding ecclesiastical assemblies. Articles 53 to 70 pertain to cer- 
tain ceremonies; and Articles 71 to 86 concern censure and admonition. 

Instead of considering Articles 53 and 54 successively we take them 
together. The subject matter of these two articles is one and the 
same. To avoid needless repetition, and in the interest of an orderly 
consideration of the subject matter, we follow this procedure. 

It should not escape our attention that this present section of our 
Church Order places doctrines before Sacraments and ceremonies. 
This is logical. No ecclesiastical confederacy, denomination (the 
Dutch use the descriptive expression “kerkverband”) can function 
properly without agreement regarding doctrines, Sacraments, and li- 
turgical activities and ceremonies. And again, unless there be doc- 
trinal unity first of all, there can be no unity regarding the Sacra- 
ments and ceremonies, for these are ordered and maintained by each 
Church or denomination according to doctrinal conception; that is to 
say, each Church or denomination maintains the Sacraments and 
orders its liturgy and ceremonies according to what it believes to be 
the teachings of the Bible regarding these matters. Consequently our 
Church Order follows the correct and logical order when in this pres- 
ent division it places the matter of doctrines first. 

In connection with this it may be said that doctrinal unity forms 
the foundation for denominational unity. The confessional writings 
of our Churches are the very cornerstones of their existence. When 
Calvin be^an the work of reformation in Geneva, Switzerland, one of 
the first things that he did was to draft a Confession of Faith. When 

221 


222 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the Reformed Churches of France met in Synod for the first time 
(1559) they forthwith accepted a common Confession of Faith. When 
the Reformed Churches of the Southern Netherlands (present day 
Belgium) met in Synod for the first time (Armentieres* 1563) they 
likewise instantly accepted a Confession of Faith, namely the one 
written by Guido De Bres. And when the Churches of the northern 
provinces met in their first Synod (Emden, 1571), they forthwith made 
agreement with the Confession adopted obligatory. The Reformed 
Churches have felt the need and import of doctrinal purity and unity 
from the very beginning of their existence. 

1. Historical origin of these articles. 

During the first few decades the Reformed Churches of Holland did 
not have Forms of Subscription. The Churches simply did not require 
any one to sipi his name in testimony of the fact that he was in full 
agreement with the Confession of the Churches. But as time prog- 
ressed some Classes decided that conditions called for a definite decla- 
ration of agreement on the part of the office-bearers. It was especially 
in view of the errors of Arminianism which arose long before these 
errors were fully considered at the great Synod of Dort that several 
Classes and Particular Synods decreed that all Ministers and Profes- 
sors should sign their name to the Catechism and the Confession, in 
token of their agreement with the same. But as early as 1608 one of 
the Classes (Alkmaar) judged that the mere signing of one’s name to 
Catechism and Confession was insufficient. This Classis drafted a 
Form which contained a declaration of full agreement with the Cate- 
chism and the Confession and a promise that the subscriber would 
maintain the doctrines therein contained and that he openly reject all 
doctrines opposed to the Catechism and the Confession. Other Classes 
and Particular Synods modeled Forms of Subscription after this 
original one of Classis Alkmaar. Finally, the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
wrote the Form as it has come down to us almost unchanged. This 
Synod, as might be expected, required agreement now not only with 
the Catechism and Confession but also with the doctrinal interpreta- 
tion and pronouncements as contained in the Five Articles against the 
Arminians, known as the Canons of Dort. 

2. Fourfold significance of the IForm of Subscription. 

The Form of Subscription as it came to us from the Synod of Dort, 
1618-19, and which was not substantially changed by any of our 
Synods, consists, in the main, of (1) a declaration of agreement; (2) 
a promise to teach and to defend; (3) a promise to reject and refute 
all errors; (4) a promise to report doubts or changes of mind, and of 
subjection to examination for just cause. 

First of all the Form of Subscription contains a declaration of 
agreement. “We, the undersigned,” so we read “. . . do hereby, sin- 
cerely and in good conscience before the Lord, declare by this our sub- 
scription that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the 
articles and points of doctrine, contained in the Confession of Cate- 
chism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of 
some points of the aforesaid doctrine, made by the National Synod of 
Dordrecht, 1618-’19, do fully agree with the Word of God.” 

The Confession here referred to is the Belgic Confession of Faith, 
written in the main by Guido De Bres in the year 1561. The Cate- 
chism is the Heidelberg Catechism, nublished in the year 1563 by 
Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus. It was written at the re- 
quest of the Elector, Frederick III of the Palatinate. The latter 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


223 


reference is to the Five Articles or Canons of Dort. This declaration 
speaks of the “Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches.” 
The reference is really to the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. 
With these mother Churches of our Churches, this Form originated. 
To be technically correct the reading here should be “Confession and 
Catechism of the Christian Reformed Churches.” But we are not 
advocating a change. The significance of this declaration is clear as 
it reads. 

In the next place we read: “We promise therefore diligently to teach 
and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly 
or indirectly contradicting the same, by our public preaching or writ- 
ing.” The significance of this promise is clear and we pass it by with- 
out further comment. 

Then follows another promise in the form of a declaration. We 
read: “We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that 
militate against this doctrine and particularly those which were con- 
demned by the above mentioned Synod, but that we are disposed to 
refute and contradict these, and to exert ourselves in keeping the 
Church free from such errors. And if hereafter any difficulties or 
different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines should arise in 
our minds, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately pro- 
pose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or writing, until 
we have first revealed such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis or 
Synod, that the same may be there examined, being ready always 
cheerfully to submit to the judgment of the Consistory, Classis, or 
Synod, under the penalty in case of refusal to be, by that very fact, 
suspended from our office.” 

Note that the subscriber here promises not only to reject all errors 
militating against the doctrine of Holy Writ as confessed by the 
Churches but that he also promises active opposition. One who would 
merely confess the truth and deny error would not be doing his full 
duty. Only he does his full duty and is true to his promise who ac- 
tively opposes erroneous conceptions. Our Form of Subscription ex- 
pects us to be militant in our Christianity. By signing our names to 
it we promise to carry on a defensive and an offensive fight for the 
true doctrine of the Church and the Kingdom. 

The phrase, “and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church free from 
such errors,” is our English rendering for the Dutch original, “en 
helpen weren.” In this simple expression the Church is not mentioned. 
The phrase as we have translated it would seem to refer most natur- 
ally to the organized Church or the denomination to which we belong. 
But in view of the Dutch expression, which covers much more than the 
limited domain of the organized Church and Churches, it is best to 
think in this connection of the Church of Christ on earth, the spiritual 
body of Christ manifesting itself in confession and conduct wherever 
believers are found. The interpretation would at least harmonize with 
the wording of the Dutch original of our Form of Subscription. 

Note also that one who entertains serious doubts or who experiences 
a change of mind in regard to any points of doctrine here promises 
not to advocate these conceptions which are contrary to the accepted 
confession, but that he will reveal his sentiments to one of our eccl- 
esiastical assemblies. Our Churches do not put their confessional 
standards on par with the Bible. Our standards are not infallible and 
unchangeable. But they should be accepted as the truth of God by all 
office-bearers especially until they have been proven to be in error. 
They have been found to be a summary of divine revelation by the 
Churches, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and no one should set 


224 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


them aside when he entertains serious doubts as to their correctness, 
but rather in the interest of harmony and unity, and for the sake of 
the truth of God involved, reveal his doubts to the Churches in order 
that the Churches may together look into the matter, revising the 
creeds if need be, or else attempt to convince the erring brother con- 
cerning his misinterpretation of God’s Word. 

Doubts as to the scripturalness of our doctrinal summaries, or con- 
victions as to their unscriptural character on any score may be 
reported to “the Consistory, Classis, or Synod.” One burdened may, 
therefore, go to his Consistory with his difficulties. Or if he so de- 
sires he may go to the Classis to which his Church belongs. Or he 
may even go directly to Synod to reveal his difficulties. The method 
of procedure is left to the subscriber. Ordinarily the burdened brother 
will go to his own Consistory first. But if he so desires he may go 
directly to the major assemblies. 

Furthermore the subscriber promises in this particular declaration 
that he will cheerfully submit himself to the conclusions of the Con- 
sistory, Classis, or Synod. And if he refuses to submit himself to 
the judgment of these bodies he is by that very fact suspended from 
office. Formal suspension would have to take place, but by his refusal 
to submit himself to the judgment of the Churches the brother con- 
cerned has virtually suspended himself. Whether or not deposition 
would follow suspension would depend on the question whether or not 
the brother concerned persisted in his error or errors. 

In the fourth place subscribers to this Form promise: “and further, 
if at any time the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, upon sufficient 
grounds of suspicion and to preserve the uniformity and purity of 
doctrine, may deem it proper to require of us a further explanation of 
our sentiments respecting any particular article of the Confession of 
Faith, the Catechism, or the explanation of the National Synod, we do 
hereby promise to be always willing and ready to comply with such 
requisition, under the penalty above mentioned, reserving for our- 
selves, however, the right of appeal in case we should believe ourselves 
aggrieved by the sentence of the Consistory or the Classis; and until 
a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the deter- 
mination and judgment already passed.” 

As a burdened subscriber can go with his problem to Consistory, 
Classis, or Synod, so also a Consistory, a Classis, or a Synod may 
decide to require of a brother falling under their authority a further 
explanation concerning his sentiments regarding any article of our 
standards. Action of this kind may be taken by a Classis or a Synod 
as well as by a Consistory. The major assemblies need not wait for 
minor assemblies. As intimated above and as stands to reason, how- 
ever, a Consistory can only require a further explanation of this kind 
from those office-bearers which are members of its body. And a 
Classis can only take action of this kind regarding office-bearers who 
belong to one of the Churches of Classis. 

Requisitions of this kind may be made only “upon sufficient grounds 
of suspicion.” Whether “sufficient grounds of suspicion” are present 
or not is decided upon by the assembly in question, not by the brother 
whose views are being questioned. 

The explanation which any assembly may require must concern his 
interpretation or sentiment regarding any article or articles of our 
confessional writings. In other words, no assembly has the right to 
call a brother “on the carpet” and to require of him that he answer 
questions addressed to him at random. The doctrinal standards 
adopted are our confessions. Matters not included in these writings 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


225 


are left to the judgment of every believer. The basis for any exami- 
nation of this kind is therefore always our confessional writings. 
And these not merely in general. The examination must concern itself 
with definite articles of our standards. This provision is altogether 
just and constitutes a safeguard against heresy hunting and abuse. 

But in this fourth section of the Form of Subscription the sub- 
scriber also promises to comply with the requisition of his Consistory, 
Classis, or Synod. If not withstanding this solemn promise any sub- 
scriber at any time refuses to answer a summons, he thereby sus- 
pends himself from office, and the assembly concerned will so declare. 

If the brother in question feels himself aggrieved by the sentence 
of his Consistory or Classis, he has the right of appeal, but he prom- 
ises to abide by the decision of the assembly concerned in the mean- 
time. That is to say, for example, a suspended Minister must recog- 
nize the fact of his suspension and not continue to preach, etc. A 
suspended party must await the outcome of his appeal and he may 
not ignore his suspension. All the privileges of office are held in 
abeyance as long as an office-bearer is under suspension. Whether 
deposition will follow depends on the question whether or not the 
suspension in question is upheld by the body appealed to, or whether 
or not this guilty brother clings to his errors in spite of the admoni- 
tions extended. 

According to the Form before us, an aggrieved party may appeal 
from Consistory to Classis, or from Classis to Synod. Might he also 
appeal from one Synod to the next? Yes, although indefinite appeal 
from Synod to Synod is out of order. An appeal from the sentencing 
Synod to the next should be enough. 

3. Scope of the Form of Subscription. 

From the introductory statement of our Form of Subscription it 
becomes clear that professors, Ministers, Elders, and Deacons are 
required to sign this Form. We read: “We, the undersigned, Pro- 
fessors of the Christian Reformed Church, Ministers of the Gospel, 
Elders and Deacons of the Christian Reformed congregation of . . . .” 
Articles 53 and 54, now under consideration, mention the same office- 
bearers. The Form merely mentions professors, but Article 53 speci- 
fies: “Professors of Theology.” The professors of our Calvin College 
are not covered by the phrase, “Professors of the Christian Reformed 
Church,” of the Form of Subscription. Article 53 of the Church Order 
makes this clear. Moreover, the Form of Subscription presupposes 
throughout that those who subscribe to it are office-bearers. It speaks 
of suspension from office. But our college professors are not office- 
bearers, at least not by virtue of their professorship, although they 
may happen to be Ministers, Elders or Deacons of the Church to 
which they belong. 

The Reformed Churches of Holland have three different forms of 
subscription. They all date back to years prior to the great Synod 
of Dort, although they were all revised and approved by this Synod. 
The first of these forms is for Ministers of the Gospel; the second 
for Professors of Theology; the third for Rectors and Schoolmasters. 
The Holland Churches do not have a general Form for Elders and 
Deacons, although Article 54 of the present Dutch Church Order 
requires that these office-bearers subscribe to the three Forms of 
Unity, just as our 54th Article requires such. This matter is left to 
the Classes in Holland. The Classes can use the Forms adopted for 
Ministers of the Gospel with some minor adaptations, or they may 
draw up a special form of subscription as has been done by some 


226 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Classes in years of yore. (Cf. Acts, Particular Synod of Zeeland, 
1610, and Acts, Particular Synod of South Holland, 1622.) Our Form 
of Subscription has been written in such a way that all the office- 
bearers mentioned in Articles 53 and 54 of the Church Order can 
sign it. This unification makes for simplicity and convenience, but it 
does not in every instance make for clarity and co-ordination. For 
example, from a mere reading of our Form of Subscription one not 
fully informed might be led to think that our Elders and Deacons 
are permitted to preach, for Elders and Deacons, as well as Ministers 
and professors of theology, promise in our Form not to preach things 
contrary to the three Forms of Unity. 

Article 54 of the Church Order of the Reformed Churches of Hol- 
land also provides that those who are declared Candidates by the 
Classes, shall sign their names to the Standards of the Churches. 
This is no doubt a good rule. As a matter of safety it might be well 
that we would require of all those who are licensed to exhort in our 
Churches that they first sign an appropriate form of subscription. 

Candidates for the ministry who have accepted a call and have 
passed their final or decisive examination, their classical examination 
of admittance to the ministry, should sign the Form of Subscription 
at the time of their examination before receiving their document of 
admittance. 

It is very necessary that we take this signing of the Form of Sub- 
scription very seriously. It should never become a mere form, a tra- 
ditional performance. And the subscriber should know what he is 
signing. Those, for example, who are chosen to office for the first 
time should be notified ahead of time that they will be expected to 
sign this document in due season, informing them that if they have 
any scruples, after carefully reading the Form, that then it is their 
duty to notify the Consistory of their difficulty before their ordina- 
tion or installation takes place. 

In times of laxity and doctrinal indifference or in days when under- 
currents of error seem to be present, the Churches should be very 
careful not to revise their Form of Subscription to their own hurt. A 
classic example of the need of vigilance on this score is the change 
which was introduced into the Form of Subscription by the Churches 
of Holland in 1816. A slight change was introduced into the old form 
of subscription drafted by the great Synod of Dort (1618-19). Ac- 
cording to the old form prospective Ministers by signing declared that 
they believed that the Three Forms of Unity agreed altogether with 
the Word of God. According to the new reading of 1816, these pros- 
pective Ministers declared that they accepted the doctrines contained 
in the Three Forms of Unity, which agreed with the holy Word of 
God. The phrase in question was made to read: “. . . de leer, welke 
overeenkomstig Gods heilig Woord in de aangenomen Formulieren 
van Eenigheid is vervat, ter goeder trouw aan te nemen en hartelyk 
te gelooven.” 

This sounds good enough but it left a loop-hole. The question soon 
arose whether the “overeenkomstig” had the significance of omdat, 
(quia) “because,” or voor zoover (quatenus) “in as far.” Those who 
wanted to be loyal to the Word of God and Reformed faith held 
that the latter interpretation was possible and also intended by the 
leaders of the revision group. Some denied this charge vigorously. 
But in 1835 one of their leaders admitted that the change had been 
sponsored and made so that a candidate could sign the Form of Sub- 
scription even if he did not fully agree with the Standards of the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


227 


Churches. * He who signs this document in Holland today merely 
declares that he will be loyal to the Three Forms of Unity in as far 
as these agree with the Word of God. The result is that even Uni- 
tarians and Communists can become Ministers of the Hervormde 
Kerk in the Netherlands. The Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland, 
the purified and reorganized Reformed Churches of Holland, as might 
be expected, immediately readopted the unequivocal Form of Subscrip- 
tion of Dort, 1618-19. Heretics cannot consistently sign this Form. 

Article 53 contains the following parenthetic statements: “(which 
also behooves the other Professors and School Teachers).” 

Originally this statement referred to non-theological professors 
teaching in various schools and universities in the Netherlands, and 
to all school masters, teaching and training the children in various 
local schools throughout the land. These schools were owned by the 
government, but managed and supervised by the Churches. (See our 
discussion of Article 21.) 

This parenthetic statement was purposely retained in our Church 
Order. Our Churches by this statement commit themselves in favor 
of requiring all those that teach in our schools, Christian Day 
Schools, Christian High Schools, and our colleges or college, to sign 
a Form of Subscription. We do not know in how far this provision 
of the Church Order is practiced, but none will deny that all those 
that receive the privilege of teaching the youth of our Churches 
should be in hearty accord with the doctrine of our Churches and that 
this practice should be revived in as far as it has not been maintained. 


ARTICLE LV. 

To ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceed- 
ingly through heretical writings , the Ministers and Elders shall 
use the means of teaching , of refutation, or warning, and of 
admonition, as well as in the Ministry of the Word as in Chris- 
tian teaching and family-visiting. 

HERETICAL WRITINGS 

Originally this 55th article concerned the censure of books. The 
article provided that no one, being of the Reformed religion, should 
undertake to publish a book or a pamphlet dealing with a religious 
matter unless he had first received permission and approval of the 
Ministers of his Classes, or of the Ministers of his Particular Synod, 
or of the theological professors. These professors could not give ap- 
proval without the foreknowledge of the Classis in which they resided. 
First of all we shall therefore say a few words regarding the censure 
of books as originally provided for in this article. Next we shall 
consider the article as it now reads. 

1. The censure of books. 

The censuring of writings and books and particularly the prohibi- 
tion of the distribution of certain writings, is of old standing. The 
Roman government forbade the distribution of certain writings which 
it had deemed harmful. And when Constantine the Great became an 


* Christlyke Encyclopaedia IV, p. 653. 


228 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


adherent and defender of Christianity he promulgated strong edicts 
against anti-Christian writings. Other Emperors did the same.* 
Throughout the middle ages the Church of Rome maintained an au- 
thoritative position regarding this matter. Thus in 1415 Johannes 
Huss, the Bohemian forerunner to the Reformation and martyr for 
the cause of Christ, was condemned to die and his books were for- 
bidden and ordered to be burned. Especially when the discovery of 
the printing press made the multiplication of books so much easier, 
did Rome seek to exercise jurisdiction on this point. 

When the Reformers began to write and when printing presses 
everywhere began to publish the writings of the Reformation leaders 
and their translations of the Bible into the language of the people, 
Rome became very active in its censuring of these productions. It 
soon published its “Index”, a list of forbidden books. It martyred 
and persecuted those who helped to publish and to distribute this 
forbidden literature. 

When the Reformation gained headway and power the Churches 
naturally faced the problem regarding erroneous and heretical writ- 
ings. They faced the question of a free or fully controlled press. The 
Reformed Churches of Holland, true to the ancient example and the 
age-old practice of Rome and the general conceptions of their day, 
decided that no one of the Reformed Churches should write and pub- 
lish merely upon his own initiative and according to his own mind. 
They decided that none should publish a book or writing without the 
approval of the Ministers of his Classis or Particular Synod or the 
professors of theology. In fact, the first Synod (Emden, 1571) ruled 
that no one regardless of the fact whether he belonged to one of the 
Reformed Churches or not, should be permitted to publish a book 
without proper authorization. Other Synods confirmed this same gen- 
eral ruling. The Churches seemingly hoped that the government 
would become wholly Reformed and would eventually take the same 
stand. This hope was never fully realized, and in 1586 the restriction 
of Article 55 was limited to those who professed to be Reformed and 
over whom the Churches therefore had supervision and control. The 
great Synod of Dort wrote the 55th article as we have indicated it in 
the introductory statement to our comments on this article. 

But in actual practice Article 55 had little significance. It was 
soon found that the censuring of books, in the sense of permitting 
none but approved books to be printed and circulated, was imprac- 
ticable. In the first place, the government did not cooperate suffi- 
ciently. In fact, in December, 1618, the government made a law of 
its own which was less drastic than what the Churches desired. 
Furthermore, the major assemblies are not always in session and could 
not possibly pass on all the writings submitted directly. They would 
have to appoint committees and thus foster hierarchism. Again, non- 
Reformed writers were not bound, whereas Reformed writers were 
bound. They could not publish without proper approval. This worked 
as an undesirable check upon the initiative of Reformed writers. And 
again, the rigid maintenance of Article 55 was after all no guarantee 
that no objectionable books would ever be published. Thus Fred. Van 
Leenhof published his Heaven on Earth in 1703 with proper approval, 
while the Churches had to depose him in 1708 because of heresies 
advocated in said book. On the other hand, worthy books were some- 
times rejected and kept off the press, because they did not meet with 
the approval of the men examining them. Moreover, as both Bouw- 


• Bouwman: Ger. Kerkpecht, II, 1934, p. 587. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


229 


man and Jansen say, “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in 
secret is pleasant.” (Prov. 9:17.) Official disapproval of books often 
aroused curiosity and whetted the appetite of the public so that re- 
fusal of approval often made good advertisement and promoted the 
reading of such publications if they were published in spite of the 
opinion of those who reviewed the book.* 

In view of the situation briefly indicated above the Synod of 
Utrecht, Netherlands, 1905, re-wrote Article 55 and rendered it as it 
now reads. Our Synod of 1914 adopted this reading. 

2. The present reading and provisions of Article 55. 

Article 55 of our Church Order as it now reads, clearly indicates 
that we believe that erroneous doctrines and presentations advocated 
in undesirable books and writings should be counteracted, not by pro- 
hibitions, but by teachings, refutations, warnings and admonitions. 
Moral and spiritual persuasions we now prefer above legalistic sup- 
pressions. 

The first means of counteracting the influence exerted by danger- 
ous reading material, mentioned in the article is the Ministry of the 
Word. Jansen says: “By elken tekst moet de waarheid zuiver ver- 
kondigd, de dwaling weerlegd, voor ketterijen gewaarschuwd en tot 
getrouwheid vermaand worden.” With each text the truth must be 
proclaimed in its purity, errors must be refuted, heresies must be 
warned against, and there must be an admonition to loyalty. No doubt 
there is room and call for these four elements in the preaching of 
the Word, again and again. Our day and age calls for positive in- 
struction in the truth of God. But our people should also have their 
attention called to erroneous conceptions which run counter to God’s 
truth and which undermine God’s truth, and very often in a very 
subtle fashion. Error must be unmasked and clearly indicated. Posi- 
tive exposition of God’s Word comes first and it should ever occupy 
the chief places in our sermons. But opposition to error and miscon- 
ception may not be lacking. This will include serious warning and 
earnest admonition. Especially do our young people need all these 
elements mentioned in Article 55. They are entitled to definite, clear- 
cut messages which will help them against numberless dangers by 
which they are constantly surrounded. 

The Christian teaching mentioned in this article refers to the 
Catechism class, inasmuch as the Catechism class is the regular 
means of instruction in our Churches. But our Sunday Schools and 
our Christian Schools and Colleges also have a very definite task here. 
Our schools have wonderful opportunities to render a noble service 
to our youth on this score. 

And when the Consistory calls on the families of its Church year 
by year to consider the spiritual condition and welfare of the family, 
then the office-bearers also have a very choice opportunity to carry 
out the provisions of this article. Let the visitors not forget their 
charge on this point. Let them faithfully warn against the pernicious 
influence of undesirable literature and let them urge the reading of 
wholesome material, the Church papers, and other Reformed periodi- 
cals, as well as trustworthy books. 

If a member of one of our Churches would write and distribute a 
heretical book, would he become justly subject to discipline? He 
certainly would. And although it is hard to lay down iron-bound 


• For a fuller discussion of this matter cf. Bouwman, “De Boekencen- 
suur,“ Oer. Kerkr., II, pp. 584-593. 


230 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


rules, if a member of our Churches should print and sell literature 
which is heretical and anti-Biblical he would also become the object 
of discipline. No one may wilfully and consciously help to break 
down the Kingdom of God. No one may help to poison the minds 
of our youth. He who does, though it be to him merely a business 
proposition, is sinning and should be admonished and dealt with ac- 
cordingly. 

The book reviews which our trustworthy papers supply can also 
render a great service in this field. 


ARTICLE LVI. 

The Covenant of God shall be sealed unto the children of 
Christians by Baptism , as soon as the administration thereof 
is feasible, in the public assembly when the Word of God is 
preached . 

BAPTISM OF CHILDREN 

The following nine articles concern the administration of the Sac- 
raments. * Articles 56 to 60 regulate the administration of Baptism, 
and Articles 61 to 64 the administration of the Lord's Supper. The 
following matters regarding Baptism are covered in the next five 
articles: Article 56: Baptism of Children; Article 67: Baptismal 
Sponsors; Article 58: Form of Baptism; Article 59: Baptism of 
Adults; Article 60: Baptismal Records. The present article therefore 
regulates the matter of infant baptism. 

1. Which children are to be baptized? 

Article 56 stipulates that children of Christians shall be baptized. 
Originally the Wezelian Convention (1568) merely spoke of baptism 
that should be administered “to the children.” This wording was also 
adopted by the Particular Synod of Dort, 1574. But these gatherings 
did not mean to say that all children should be baptized regardless of 
their parentage and the faith of their parents. The Synod of Dort, 
1578, made this clear by adopting the following wording: “to the 
children of Christians.” The Synod of Middelburg further amended 
the designation by rendering the phrase: “to the children of baptized 
Christians.” But the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, again dropped 
the adjective “baptized”, perhaps because all who were Christians 
were naturally also baptized. Today we still have the indication, 
“unto the children of Christians,” as it was already accepted in 1578.** 

The expression, “unto the children of Christians” is indeed rather 
broad. But the Church Order should not go into all kinds of details. 
A Church Order should indicate leading principles. Moreover, the 
brevity of the stipulation also harmonizes with the brevity of the 
heading of our Form for the Baptism of Infants. 

Children of Christians are children of the covenant and as such 


• We are capitalizing the words Sacrament, Baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper, for the following reasons: 1. The Church Order does so. 2. Usage 
favors the capitalization of the term, Lord’s Supper. Consistancy requires 
that Baptism and Sacrament be capitalized likewise. 3. The great signi- 
ficance of the Sacraments warrants their capitalization. 

** cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 247; or Kerkellik Hand- 
boekje, Zalsman, 1882. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


231 


are included in the Church of God. (Gen. 3:15; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Eph. 
6:1; I Cor. 7:14b; Mark 10:14b; I Joh. 2:13c.) 

The general principle having been established a number of prac- 
tical questions soon presented themselves. From the very outset it be- 
came the rule to baptize only children of parents who belonged to the 
Reformed Churches. But some parents, who were in sympathy with 
the Reformation and at heart at odds with the Roman Church, never- 
theless failed to make a final break with Rome because they lacked 
the courage of faith and clarity of conviction. Officially they were 
still Roman Catholics. Sometimes such parents requested a Reformed 
Church to baptize their child. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) replied 
to a question regarding such cases by referring to the opinion of the 
theologians of Geneva, Ministers and professors. The rule should be, 
so Beza had written, that only children of Church members should 
receive baptism. But in abnormal times, as when the Church was in 
process of being reorganized, or when severe persecutions were 
raging, exceptions to this rule might be made. Children of weak and 
fearful parents might be baptized under these circumstances, though 
not without certain stipulations and promises. But as will be realized, 
that ruling was by way of concession for the period of transition. 

Should children of parents who are under discipline be baptized? 
Such children are entitled to baptism because such parents are still 
within the Church. However, such parents, since their very Christian- 
ity is in question, are not in position to promise before God and the 
Church that they will train their children in harmony with the doc- 
trine of God[s Word. In other words, such parents under censure 
are not in position to take upon themselves the baptismal vows. They 
cannot pledge to give their child a training which harmonizes with 
the significance of baptism. Consequently the baptism of children of 
such parents is postponed until the censure can be lifted. Unless said 
parents should secure the grandparents or other close relatives or 
friends to act as sponsors. The child of censured parents is assumed 
to be a child of the covenant and therefore entitled to Baptism. But 
Baptism without being interpreted and understood becomes an empty 
form. Yet this Sacrament is too sacred to be reduced to an empty 
form. Consequently the Church and its office-bearers demand that the 
parents shall be qualified to explain to the child, as it grows up, the 
meaning of its Baptism, and that these parents shall also promise to 
do so. Now if for any reason parents of a child entitled to Baptism 
are disqualified to take upon themselves these solemn promises, then, 
if the child is to be baptized, witnesses must be found who promise 
to take the place of the parents to the best of their ability. If such 
sponsors cannot be secured the child should not be baptized until he 
is old enough to judge for himself, and to request Baptism upon pro- 
fession of faith. If in any cases the parents are opposed to the Bap- 
tism of their child, and if it becomes clear that the proposed sponsors 
will in all likelihood not be able to instruct the child properly be- 
cause of the ill-will of the parents, then again matters should not be 
forced or urged but Baptism should wait. It goes without saying 
that if only one of the parents is under censure the other may pro- 
ceed with the Baptism of the child. Children bom to excommunicated 
parents are not entitled to Baptism. Such parents can not be regarded 
as members of God’s covenant and of the Church of Christ. This does 
not mean that their children may not be in the covenant. God often 
restores children or children’s children of covenant-breakers unto Him- 
self. But inasmuch as we have no definite assurance in God’s Word 
regarding children of such unfaithful and unbelieving parents, and 


232 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


inasmuch as the instruction of such children by competent sponsors 
would be much hampered at best, it is better not to baptize children 
bom to excommunicated parents. However, if children of unfaithful, 
unbelieving or ex-communicated parents make their permanent homes, 
say with their God-fearing grandparents who shall be able to explain 
the meaning of Baptism to them and who shall be in position to give 
them a good Christian training, then such children need not be barred 
from Baptism; the parties concerned being willing to serve as spon- 
sors, taking upon them the baptismal vows. 

Children of ex-communicated parents who have received Baptism 
before their parents' ex-communication are to be instructed by Chris- 
tian relatives and by the Church, and their Baptism, given to them 
in God's providence, is not to be held null and void until such children, 
when come to years of discretion, show by word and deed that they 
have no part in the covenant of God and His Church. If only one of 
the parents is excommunicated the other has the right to have child- 
ren baptized. This is sufficiently clear from I Cor. 7:14. “For the un- 
believing husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now 
are they holy.” 

Another question which often arose is this: May illegitimate child- 
ren, children bom out of wedlock, be baptized ? Supposing an unmar- 
ried woman gives birth to a child whose father is a non-Christian, 
may the mother of said child have it baptized? If she, being a pro- 
fessing member of the Church, repents sincerely of her sin, then she 
may have her child baptized. The child is a covenant child and the 
mother is competent to assume the baptismal promises. If the mother 
is a member-by-Baptism only, then she should first make profession 
of faith and confession of her specific sin. If she reveals true repent- 
ance concerning her special transgression, but if her faith be not yet 
clear enough for her to make profession of faith, then her repentance 
regarding her sin against the Seventh Commandment should be an- 
nounced to the Church, and competent sponsors, say the grandparents, 
should assume the baptismal promises for her. If an illegitimate 
parent reveals no repentance of the sin committed and should even 
live a life of indifference and Godlessness, but place the child under 
the control of God-fearing relatives, then these relatives may apply 
for Baptism and act as sponsors at the time of Baptism.* The child 
belongs to the seed of the covenant and the relatives are competent 
to assume the baptismal vows. 

May adopted children be baptized? If adopted children are of be- 
lieving parentage the answer is yes. And the Reformed Churches 
have always been lenient regarding this question. If it can be estab- 
lished that the child concerned is of covenant lineage, though this 
lineage goes back three or more generations, then, as a rule, Baptism 
has been permitted. But regarding the Baptism of children legally 
adopted by believing parents but born of pagans or unbelievers, there 
has been a difference of opinion. The great Synod of Dort already 
faced this question. Specifically the question faced was this: 
Whether children born of pagan parents (in East India, the Dutch 
possessions) but adopted to be members of the household of believers, 
might receive Christian Baptism. The Synod judged that these chil- 
dren should not be baptized until they in due season should make 
profession of faith. Prof. Wm. Heyns, in his Handbook for Elders 


• This position is also that of Voetius (Pol. Scol., 11653) cf. Jansen: 
Xorte Verklarlng, etc., p. 250. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


233 


and Deacons judges that those who do not favor the Baptism of 
adopted children of non-Christian birth cannot appeal to the Synod 
of Dort. Says he: “It (the question) came from East India and con- 
cerned such children of heathen natives as had been received usually 
after they had reached a certain age, in Christian families, but, as 
was expressly stated, received in such a manner that they were not 
legally adopted, that they were members of the family as slaves, not 
as children, and that occasionally they were removed again from these 
families and fell back among the heathen.” * Prof. Heyns bases this 
statement upon information given to the Synod of Dort by the dele- 
gates from North Holland in the 18th session of Synod. But seem- 
ingly Prof. Heyns has overlooked the exact wording of the decision 
of the Synod regarding this matter, taken in the 19th session. First 
the Synod decided unanimously that those who were old enough to 
receive some instruction should not be baptized until they had made 
profession of their faith. Then we read: “Concerning children of 
pagans which, because of their youth, or because they cannot under- 
stand the language (of the Dutch in East Indian homes), have not 
been able to receive instruction from the Christians, although they 
may have been incorporated into the homes of Christians by adoption, 
it was also judged by majority vote that these should not be baptized 
before they have come to such years that they can be instructed in 
the first principles of the Christian Religion according to the measure 
of their understanding, and after such has also actually taken 
place.” ** (Translation and bold face ours. Authors.) To be sure, the 
Synod of Dort declared itself against the Baptism of adopted children 
of non-Christian origin. 

In the year 1910 our own Synod left the matter of Baptism or non- 
Baptism of adopted children of non-Christian parentage to the judg- 
ment of each Consistory. *** **** 

The Synod 1930 answered the question, “whether children who were 
not bom of believing parents, but who were adopted by believers, 
may be baptized,” in the affirmative. 

Against decisions of 1930 a number of protests appeared at the 
Synod of 1932. This Synod appointed a strong Committee to recon- 
sider this whole matter thoroughly. This Committee reported four 
years later, in 1936. The report of this Committee was not by any 
means unanimous. It was three-fold. Four members delivered a ma- 
jority report. Three members a minority report. And two members 
offered a third report. These reports which discuss the problems in- 
volved very thoroughly may all be found in the Agenda, for Synod 
1936, Part I. After some consideration Synod of 1936 decided: “That 
there is not sufficient ground to reverse the decision of the Synod of 
1930 upholding the permissibility of the baptism of children born 
outside of the covenant circle and adopted by believing parents.” 

Furthermore this Synod decided: “That this 1930 decision in no 
way justifies the molestation of anyone who, whether as church mem- 
ber or in the specific capacity of office-bearer, may have conscientious 
scruples against the administration of the Sacrament of baptism to 
such children.”*** 

It appears to us that one’s position on this question regarding the 
permissibility or non-permissibility of the Baptism of adopted children 


* Heyns: Idem, p. 194. A _ . ... 

*• Acta, ofte Handelingen des Nationalen Synodi tot Dordrecht. Anno 
1618, ende 1619. 1621, p. 61. 

••• cf. Acts, 1910, Art. 67. 

**** Acts, 1930, pp. 64, 56. 


234 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of non-Christian birth, is largely determined by one’s covenant view. 
If one holds that the covenant of grace is essentially only a covenan- 
tal form for the promise of salvation for those that believe, then in 
all likelihood he will favor the Baptism of all adopted children. If, 
on the other hand, one believes that the covenant of grace is an actual 
bond or league of life-relationship between God and His people in 
Christ Jesus as their federal head, then one will in all likelihood 
judge against the Baptism of adopted children of non-Christian birth. 

We may also add that it is our conviction that the language of 
Article 34 of our Confession, and of Lord’s Days 26 and 27 of our 
Heidelberg Catechism, as well as the language employed in our Form 
of Baptism, is against the practice of baptizing children of non- 
Christian birth. These writings all assume that the subject of Bap- 
tism is “in Christ”, as His people’s redeemer and second Adam. We 
find no warrant in Scripture for assuming that children born of un- 
believing, Godless parents are “in Christ”, simply because they are 
legally adopted by believing parents. According to our standards and 
our Form of Baptism, Baptism is not merely a sign and a seal upon 
a conditional promise of God, but a sign and a seal of saving grace 
in Christ. Those who are baptized, to say no more, are assumed to 
be federally, legally in Christ our second Adam. (Note well, our 
standards and Forms do not contend that every child bom of believ- 
ing parents is actually federally in Christ for there are exceptions 
to every rule, and far less that every child is actually, subjectively 
in possession of all the benefits of Christ’s obedience and death; re- 
generation, etc.) 

Upon what basis does the meaningful assumption referred to above 
rest? Upon the assurances of God regarding the (natural) children 
of believers. It cannot be assumed that children of pagans and non- 
Christians are (federally, representatively, covenantally) in Christ 
until they by their confession and walk of life manifest themselves 
as Christians. Consequently the present writers believe it is better 
to postpone the Baptism of adopted children in question until they 
manifest themselves as Christians. But we would urge all office- 
bearers to study the reports delivered at the Synod of 1936 and then 
let each come to a conscientious decision as to what he believes to be 
proper. The injunction of God to Abraham (Gen. 17) to circumcise 
also the children of his slaves, is a strong argument in favor of the 
administration of Baptism to the children in question. But those who 
do not favor the Baptism of these children reply and assume with 
the Synod of Dort that Abraham did not circumcise all children of 
pagans, but only those whose parents had been circumcised and 
taught to believe on the true God. 

It may also be said that the recent or present day leaders of the 
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands are, as far as we know, all 
opposed to the practice of baptizing children of non-Christian par- 
entage, though adopted into Christian homes.* This is most likely 
due to the fact that the question concerning the Baptism of adopted 
children, born of Godless parents, is at heart a question regarding 
the covenant. The stricter covenant conception, which holds that the 
covenant is in essence a bond of life-relationship between God and 
His people in Christ Jesus, is the prevalent conception in the Nether- 
land Churches of our forebears. 

Finally the question presents itself whether or not children of 


* cf. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkrecht, II, 1934, pp. 284-300. In these pages 
the author gives lengthy consideration to our decision of 1930. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 235 

me mbers-by-B a ptism may be baptized. Children of such parents are 
entitled to Baptism but their own parents are not in position to take 
upon themselves the baptismal vows. Consequently the only way in 
which these children can be baptized is through the acceptance of 
competent sponsors of whom w r e have already spoken in the discus- 
sion of this article, and of whom we shall speak again in the con- 
sideration of Article 57. 

2. By whom Baptism is to be administered. 

In the final analysis, Christ Himself is the administrator of bap- 
tism. John said to Him, “I have need to be baptized of Thee.” (Matt. 
3:14.) We also read that Jesus tarried in the land of Judea and 
baptized. (John 3:22.) And, “Jesus was making and baptizing more 
disciples than John.” (John 4:1.) But the next verse tells us plainly 
that Jesus delegated the actual administration of Baptism to His 
disciples, for we read: “although Jesus himself baptized not, but His 
disciples.” (John 4:2.) Later on the Apostles were charged with this 
task (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38). 

The preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacra- 
ments logically belong together. The Sacraments are seals upon the 
testimony of the Word. For this reason Scripture unites the two, 
and from the very beginning of Christian Church history they have 
been administered by the same class of office-bearers. The Apostles 
preached and baptized. Their logical and God-ordained successors 
as preachers are the Ministers of the Gospel. Consequently the Min- 
isters of the Gospel and they only are the rightful administrators of 
Baptism today. For this reason Article 3 of this Church Order reads: 
“No one, though he be a Professor of Theology, Elder or Deacon, 
shall be permitted to enter upon the Ministry of the Word and the 
Sacraments without having been lawfully called thereunto.” And Ar- 
ticle 30 of our Confession declares that, “there must be Ministers or 
pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the Sacraments.” 

Baptism administered by private parties has never been held valid, 
even though such parties should have acted upon instructions given 
by a Consistory, inasmuch as private parties are not called and or- 
dained for this task. Neither was Baptism administered during the 
early years of the Reformation by assistants to the Ministers, such 
as catechetical instructors, sick-visitors, etc., held valid. However, 
the Synod of Dort, 1578, held that if an Elder, upon the authority of 
a Consistory or Church, had administered Baptism, that then such a 
Baptism was not to be repeated, inasmuch as such an Elder in a way 
had a call for this administration. But the Synod also decided that 
this practice should not be followed by other Churches or Consistories. 

For reasons already indicated, students and Candidates are not 
permitted to Baptize, nor such as have entered upon a secular voca- 
tion and who are therefore no longer in the ministry. 

The Reformation Churches soon faced the question of the validity 
of Baptism administered in the Roman Church. Synod of Emden, 
1571, held that those who had been regularly baptized in the Roman 
Church did not have to be baptized once again, fearing that the 
Roman Baptism was of no value. But our fathers doubtlessly felt 
that although the Roman Church was filled with error, that yet it 
was a Church of Christ in essence, and that therefore its Baptisms 
were valid. If therefore Baptism was administered by an authorized 
priest, with water and in the name of the Triune God, then re-Baptism 
did not take place. Even the Baptism of “vagabond priests,” con- 
stantly traveling from place to place, was held to be valid (Synod of 


236 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Middelburg, 1581) inasmuch as these were officially called. But the 
Baptism of monks was considered to be invalid for they have no 
charge to Baptize. Even “emergency Baptisms” administered by mid- 
wives, doctors, etc., were usually held to be valid because the Roman 
Church charges individuals to Baptize a child which is about to die. 
Whether the Reformation Churches were justified in acknowledging 
even these latter classes of Baptisms is indeed a question. 

The Baptism of anabaptists was recognized, if Baptism had taken 
place in the name of the Triune God. This was not always the case, 
because some anabaptists entertained erroneous conceptions regard- 
ing the doctrine of the trinity. However, Baptism administered by 
the Socinians was rejected because they had broken with the essence 
of Christianity. We assume the same attitude toward the Baptism 
administered by Unitarians, Mormons, etc., inasmuch as these have 
broken with the Christian religion. 

The early Reformed Churches also faced the question, what should 
be done by parents living in parts where there was no Reformed 
Church? Some had to flee to Germany during the days of persecution 
and lived for a time among the Lutherans. What of children bom 
to these people? Should they remain unbaptized? The Reformed 
people residing at Frankfort also faced this question because the 
government of Frankfort forbade the Reformed religion in 1562. 
Many Reformed theologians held that none of these parents should 
turn to the Roman Church for Baptism but that the Lutheran Church 
should be asked to baptize their children, provided the Ministers were 
willing to omit certain Lutheran ceremonies such as exorcisms (ban- 
ishing of evil spirits), etc. Calvin also judged that if Reformed 
parents found it impossible to move within the pale of a Reformed 
Church that then they should ask the Lutheran Church to baptize, 
with the understanding, however, that the Roman remnants of a 
superstitious character would be omitted, and that the parents retain 
their Reformed convictions and that the child would be reared in the 
Reformed faith.* 

In general it may be said that the Reformed Churches have always 
recognized the validity of Baptisms administered by other groups if 
Baptism was administered 1) according to the institution of Christ 
(the rightful element, water, not wanting), 2) in a community or 
association of believers confessing the Trinity, which association is 
therefore in principle a Church of Christ, 3) by one duly authorized 
to administer this Sacrament by a Church or Christian association. 

3. When Baptism should be administered. 

When, or, how soon after birth should a child be baptized? Our 
Church Order, in the present article, answers: “as soon as the ad- 
ministration thereof is feasible.” Baptism should take place as soon 
as possible. Individuals and families, concerning whose baptism Holy 
Writ makes mention, received this Sacrament as soon as possible, 
right after their confession of faith in Christ. (Acts 2:41: 16:14,15; 
16:33.) 

Respect for and appreciation of the significance of Baptism should 
also tell us that this blessed Sacrament should be administered to our 
children as soon as possible. Baptism is a sign and seal of the wash- 
ing away of the sins of our children. It is indeed a token of great 
value and honor. Now if the President of the United States wanted 
to give your child a token of great value and honor, you would not 


• Jansen: Xorta Verklaringr, etc., 1923, p. 254. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


237 


let days and weeks pass by needlessly before claiming said token. 
You would call for the token at the appointed place at your earliest 
convenience. 

The Roman Catholic Church maintains what the Dutch call “vroeg- 
doop,” early Baptism. That is to say, in the Roman Church children 
were baptized as soon as possible in the literal sense, before the 
mother’s restoration, the child being in some cases but one or two 
days old. This practice of Rome rests on her belief that Baptism 
imparts regeneration, and that if an infant dies unbaptized it cannot 
be saved. Its soul, if it dies prior to Baptism, goes neither to heaven 
nor hell, but to a special place indicated by the Latin term “limbus 
infantum.” In this abode of infants the souls of these children are 
ever doomed to continue in an intermediate state, experiencing neither 
joy nor sorrow without ever being able to escape. Small wonder that 
Rome maintains the custom of baptizing without delay and has also 
invented emergency Baptisms, sometimes even administered to the 
chilti before its birth. 

The Reformation Churches also maintained the practice of bap- 
tizing their children without delay. At the first service to be held 
after the birth of the child Baptism would take place. As a rule 
many Baptisms would take place at the regular week-day services as 
well as on Sunday. Guido de Bres, chief author of our Confession, 
so we read, had his first-born baptized the day after its birth. And 
this practice was not limited to Holland. In the colonial period of 
our own country, our God-fearing pioneers had the same custom. 
Benj. Franklin, for example, was baptized on the very first Sunday 
after his birth. 

Needless to say the Reformation Churches practiced baptism with- 
out delay for entirely different reasons than did the Roman Church. 
The Reformed Churches in Holland today to a large extent favor and 
practice “vroeg-doop.” The arguments in favor of this practice are, 
in the main, the following: Children of believers are bom in the 
covenant, and should, therefore, receive the token of the covenant 
as soon as possible. Furthermore, the children of Israel had to wait 
until the 8th day before they might receive the sign and seal of the 
covenant for their children. Seven days, pointing to sin and impurity, 
had to be fulfilled before circumcision could take place. But for New 
Testament believers this barricade has been removed. Christ has 
died and fulfilled also this ceremonial injunction. We need not wait 
and it would be ingratitude if we should wait. Again it is said, New 
Testament examples of Baptisms teach us in every case that those 
who were entitled to Baptism were baptized without delay. 

In our Christian Reformed Churches it has become the general cus- 
tom to wait with Baptism until the mother is restored so that she 
together with the father may present the child for Baptism. Argu- 
ments used to defend this custom are as follows: The covenant is not 
established by Baptism, and therefore its administration need not be 
rushed; the child is a covenant child, apart from Baptism. Further- 
more, the mother has a most vital part in bringing the child into 
being and therefore she should not be excluded from the great privi- 
lege of presenting the child for which she suffered and sacrified so 
much for Baptism together with the father. It is true that the father 
is the head of the family and that he represents the mother at the 
time of the child’s Baptism, whether the mother be present or absent, 
yet it should not be overlooked that the mother has a personal interest 
and responsibility as well as a communal responsibility as wife. 
Moreover, it is said, the mother will have a very vital part in rearing 


238 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the child, and therefore if possible, she should personally pledge to 
train the child in the aforesaid doctrine, before God and His Church. 
It is also agreed that inasmuch as the Bible gives us no injunction 
on this score, the Churches are not bound to any definite time and 
parents are therefore free to wait. 

Personally we feel that it is well for both husband and wife, 
father and mother, to present their child for Baptism. We do not 
believe that a Scriptural principle is being violated when a father 
determines to wait for the mother’s restoration. But we would warn 
against undue delay. Churches all around us have fallen into the 
evil habit of postponing the Baptism of infants for weeks and months. 
Many wait for Easter day. This is unBiblical. This is a custom born 
of shallowness, extemalism, and ingratitude. Let us baptize “as soon 
as feasible.” Let us not wait for better clothes, relatives, the home 
Minister, other fathers and mothers, etc. But let us baptize just as 
soon as the mother can be present in God’s house. And if special cir- 
cumstances compel her to remain at home beyond the ordinary num- 
ber of days, then let the father proceed to have the child baptized 
without delay. If the blessed significance of Baptism may stand out 
prominently in our minds and hearts we shall be kept from evils and 
errors which threaten us also on this score. 

The Sacraments are signs and seals of the Word. Logically, there- 
fore, the preaching of the Word should precede the administration 
of Baptism. For practical reasons, however, we as a rule baptize 
during the first part of the service and not after the sermon. There 
is no objection to this since the Form for the Baptism of Infants gives 
a doctrinal exposition of the significance of Baptism. 

4. Baptism to be administered “in the public assembly when the 
Word of God is preached.” 

Originally some parents were still affected by the erroneous con- 
ceptions of Rome regarding Baptism. If a young infant of such par- 
ents fell sick soon after birth, before Baptism in the Church service 
could take place, they might urgently ask to have the child baptized 
at home. The Wezelian Convention, 1568, advised to grant such re- 
quests for the time being, but held that such infants should be baptized 
in the presence of some believers who could be present. The Particu- 
lar Synod of Dort 1574, however, already decided that henceforth 
children should be baptized only in a regular Church service. 

The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, ruled that Baptism might be admin- 
istered at home to children and adults who were sick and still un- 
baptized if circumstances were very urgent, and then only with the 
knowledge and in the presence of the Consistory; this Synod also 
permitted the baptizing of condemned criminals awaiting execution 
in jails, but only upon advice of the delegates of Classis. But the 
Synod may have feared ill effects of these concessions. At least it 
was decided not to publish these decisions, if the Acts were to be 
published. It wanted to maintain Article 56 of its Church Order.* 

The article specifies not merely that the administration of Baptism 
shall take place in the public assembly, condemning private bap- 
tismals as Rome practiced them in keeping with its erroneous 
baptismal doctrines, but the article also requires that Baptism shall 
be administered “when the Word of God is preached.” Baptism in 
and by itse lf is meaningless. The form as such brings no benefit. 

Korte f 'v«ktorii^, ^°258 1618 " 19 ' Post ' Acta ’ Session 163:1 and Jansen: 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 239 

It is a sign and seal of Christ’s saving grace, of the washing away 
of the recipient’s sin in the blood of Christ. 

Superstition must be avoided. Ignorance must be fought. Conse- 
quently, our fathers ordained through their assemblies that hence- 
forth the Word and the seal upon the Word should not be separated. 


ARTICLE LVII. 

The Ministers shall do their utmost to the end that the father 
present his child for Baptism . 

PRESENTATION FOR BAPTISM BY FATHERS 

1. The original reading and significance of this article. 

Our Synod of 1914 abbreviated the original reading of this article 
considerably. We merely retained the first part of Article 57 as it 
was found in the Church Order of Dort and we erased the latter part. 
The full article used to read as follows: 

The Ministers shall do their utmost and work to the end that 
the father present his child for Baptism. And in those Congre- 
gations in which besides the fathers, sponsors or witnesses are 
taken at Baptism, (which custom, being in itself permissible, shall 
not be changed lightly) it is required that such sponsors or wit- 
nesses be taken who hold that pure doctrine and who are pious 
in their conduct. 

The Church of Rome held that the natural parents were really unfit 
to present their child for Baptism inasmuch as children are born in 
a sinful state by reason of the sinfulness of the parents. Consequently 
God-fathers and God-mothers, sponsors, should be found who could 
act as spiritual fathers and mothers for the children. Rome con- 
trasted nature and grace. The men and Churches of the Reformation 
said: The antithesis is not between nature and grace, but between sin 
and grace. Nature is of God and there is no essential conflict between 
nature and grace. Marriage and procreation are perfectly normal in- 
stitutions and are not to be classified as things of a lower order and 
as necessary evils. And though every parent must confess all his 
sins committed in every relationship of life, parents should not be 
set aside and ruled out of court at the Baptism of their God-given 
offspring. Theirs is the privilege and duty to present their children 
for Baptism. 

But for years and centuries children had been presented for Bap- 
tism by sponsors. And many who joined the Reformation movement 
and left the Church of Rome did not instantly see through all the 
errors of Rome. In some Churches the office-bearers still permitted 
sponsors. The father would remain in the background and the spon- 
sors would occupy the foreground. Now Article 57 ruled that Minis- 
ters everywhere endeavor to remedy this wrong state of affairs. The 
father should himself have his child baptized, not the sponsors. But 
it was added: In those Churches in which sponsors were still employed, 
these should occupy a place next to the father. In other words, the 
father had to occupy his God-ordained place as father. And sponsors 
were only permitted to occupy a secondary place at baptismal services. 


240 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


The Churches should see to it that only worthy sponsors were chosen. 
That is to say, only sponsors who were sound in doctrine and God- 
fearing in their conduct were to be chosen. 

As will be noted the original article also stipulated that inasmuch 
as there were no serious objections against sponsors who would occupy 
a secondary place at a child’s Baptism, the custom should not be 
changed lightly. The Churches did not care to cause needless dis- 
turbance over this question. The matter was one of minor import. 
As long as parents were not crowded out of their rightful place and 
wrongfully relieved of solemn duties and obligations toward their 
children, the Churches would not interfere with this custom. They 
doubtless saw some good in the custom. Well qualified sponsors who 
promised to help the parents to instruct their children in the right 
doctrine could do a great deal of good. 

2. The significance of the article as it now reads. 

From the foregoing it has become plain that our Article 57 is es- 
sentially an article which provides for parental presentation of child- 
ren for Baptism over against the presentation of children for Baptism 
by sponsors or witnesses. 

The article does not mean to say that the fathers shall hold the 
children in their arms at the moment of Baptism rather than the 
mothers. The fathers are mentioned in this article because they are 
in the first place the responsible parties, being heads of the family by 
God’s own appointment. Furthermore, the Reformed Churches gener- 
ally, as our discussion of Article 56 has revealed, baptized their 
children early, without delay, before the mother had fully recovered. 
(See comments on former article.) Consequently, the mothers, as a 
general rule, were not present at the Baptism of their children. In 
keeping with this situation Article 57 does not mention the mothers. 
Article 57 does not ignore the mothers. They are included in the 
fathers here mentioned, but as a matter of principle and practice took 
no direct part in the Baptism of their little ones. 

Although Article 57 does not mean to say that the fathers, rather 
than the mothers, should hold their children at the moment of Bap- 
tism, it is generally agreed that there is some symbolism in the pres- 
entation of the child at the baptismal font by the father. He is the 
God-appointed head, bearing first responsibility for the child’s train- 
ing and education. But for the rest it is immaterial, whether the 
father or the mother presents the child at Baptism. Under special 
circumstances a relative or the baby’s nurse will most likely hold the 
baby at the time of Baptism. This does not decrease one whit from 
the real significance of the Sacrament. 

Inasmuch as the custom of employing sponsors next to the parents 
had not been practiced for many decades, our redaction of the Church 
Order (1914) left this whole clause regarding sponsors out of the 
article. The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in their redaction 
of 1905 maintained this clause. In view of the fact that sponsors are 
sometimes necessary, as when both parents have died, or when neither 
the father nor the mother is competent to assume the baptismal vows, 
(see comments, Act 56) it might have been well that we also had 
retained the stricken provision concerning sponsors. At any rate, the 
provision found in Article 57 prior to 1914, that sponsors should be 
sound in doctrine and pious in their conduct, is a very essential one. 
And whenever Consistories make provisions for baptismal sponsors 
this rule should still be their standard. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 241 

ARTICLE LVIII. 

In the ceremony of Baptism, both of children and of adults, 
the Minister shaU use the respective fomns drawn up for the 
administration of this Sacrament. 

FORMS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM 

We come now to a consideration of Article 58 which specifies that 
the Forms for Baptism shall be used at every baptismal service. 
These forms are two in number, the first pertaining to children to be 
baptized, and the second pertaining to adults to be baptized. 

1. The purpose of sacramental forms. 

As has been said before, the Sacraments have no significance in 
and by themselves. They convey no grace apart from the Spirit and 
should be understood in order to be fruitful of much good. The Sac- 
raments possess no magical power. They are dependent upon the 
Word and the Spirit. Consequently the correct understanding of the 
significance of the Sacraments is very important. For this reason the 
meaning of Baptism should be briefly explained at each administra- 
tion of Baptism. The explanation should not be left to the Minister 
administering the Sacrament. Errors might thus creep in. One- 
sidedness would surely result in many instances. For the safety of 
the Churches it is well to have Forms which are brief and to the 
point and well balanced, approved and accepted by all the Churches 
through their official assemblies. Our fathers instantly felt the need 
of Forms for the administration of the Sacraments, the more so since 
Rome had erred grievously on the score of the Sacraments. All kinds 
of misconceptions and superstitious notions had found a harboring 
place in the Churches through erroneous conceptions and usages re- 
garding the Sacraments. 

2. The origin of the baptismal ‘Forms. 

Concerning our Form for the Baptism of Infants it may be noted 
that it was already in use before the first Synod of Reformed 
Churches of the Netherlands could meet. At the Wezelian Conven- 
tion, 1568, the Churches were admonished to use the questions found 
in the baptismal Form verbally. This convention had reference to the 
Form written by Petrus Datheen in conjunction with Van der Heyden. 
Datheen had translated the Heidelberg Catechism from German into 
Dutch, 1563. He also prepared a new metrical version of the psalms 
and wrote certain liturgical documents for the Churches. In the year 
1566 these were published. But when Datheen and Van der Heyden 
wrote their baptismal Form they modeled their draft after other 
baptismal forms already existing. Forms used in the preparation of 
our Form are those of Calvin, a Lasco, Micron, and Olevianus. 

The Particular Synod of Dort, 1574, found that many Churches were 
not using the Forms of Datheen inasmuch as they were too lengthy. 
Many Ministers were using statements, explanations, and suggestions 
of their own. Synod deemed this a very dangerous procedure, and 
abbreviated the existing form. All Ministers were now expected to 
use the Form. 

Several other Synods concerned themselves with the wording of 
the Form but no Synod adopted its own official text. The addition of 
1611, published in Middelburg by Schilders, was reviewed by the 
Synod of Dort, but the revisions of this Synod were never published. 


242 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Not until Dr. F. L. Rutgers and his assistants, Dr. H. Bavinck and 
Dr. A. Kuyper, in the year 1897 published the 1611 edition, amended 
in accordance with the decisions taken at the great Synod of Dort, 
1618-19, were the improvements of this Synod incorporated into the 
Form. At the Synod of Arnhem, 1902, the Reformed Churches of the 
Netherlands recommended this 1897 edition of the Form for the time 
being. 

Regarding our synodically approved edition of the Form for Bap- 
tism we read as follows in the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Re- 
formed Church, appended pages, p. 72: “Until now our Church has 
availed itself of a translation of these forms (forms for the admin- 
istration of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper) which was originally 
prepared in the Netherlands for the use of Churches composed of 
English and Scottish refugees, and later revised and adopted by the 
Reformed Church in America. This translation, slightly revised and 
corrected, was adopted by our Synod of 1912 for the use of our Eng- 
lish speaking churches. A more thorough revision of these forms is 
now published for the first time in this volume. . . . The committee 
for the preparation of this Psalter Hymnal took upon itself the re- 
vision of the translation of the other forms mentioned above, (forms 
for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and the Synod of 1934 adopted 
this revision, which offers a more faithful translation of the original 
in more idiomatic English.” 

The Reformed Churches, of the Netherlands have revised their 
liturgical forms, including the Form for the Baptism of Infants, at 
their Synod of 1930. A comparison of the revised text of our bap- 
tismal Form with the revised text of the Holland Churches reveals 
the fact that our Committee has taken close note of revisions made 
by the Holland Synod of 1930. This is as it should be. Reformed 
Churches very closely related in background, doctrine and liturgy 
should benefit freely from each other’s findings and actions. But it 
would have been well for us to have recognized the work of the Hol- 
land Churches adopted in 1930, if only by the mere mention of this 
revision in the report of the committee. 

The Form of Baptism for Adults dates back to the Synod of Dort, 
1618-19. This Synod drafted this form after the Form for the Baptism 
of Infants. The doctrinal exposition of Baptism in this Form there- 
fore harmonizes with that of the other Form. And to this a special 
section concerning Baptism for adults with appropriate questions has 
been added. At the time when the Synod of Dort met there were al- 
ready two Forms for adult Baptism in existence. In 1603 the Churches 
of North and South Holland had drafted and accepted a form at their 
Particular Synods. The Churches of Friesland and Gelderland also 
used this form. And in the year 1610 the Particular Synod of Vere 
ordered a Form for the Baptism of adults to be drafted. These two 
forms differed in this respect that the former, after the expository 
section taken from the Form for the Baptism of Infants immediately 
proceeds with the prayer and questions, whereas the Form of Zeeland 
incorporates a brief exposition of the significance of adult Baptism, 
between the explanatory section taken from the Form for Infants, and 
the prayer and questions. Synod of Dort in the main accepted the 
redaction of the Churches of Zeeland, but the Synod of Dort modeled 
the five questions of our Form for adult Baptism after the questions 
Of North and South Holland. 

The Holland Synod of Arnhem, 1930, made some necessary changes 
in this Form just as it had done in the Form for infant Baptism. Our 
Synod of 1934 did the same. However, the Holland redaction now re- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


243 


quires the candidate for Baptism to respond to the five questions with 
but one affirmative reply. We have retained the five-fold response, 
the applicant for Baptism being required to respond with a solemn 
“I do” to every question individually. Because of the solemnity and 
import of the occasion we prefer the old five-fold response. Although 
it must be granted that if we require a separate response to each 
question asked of an adult about to be baptized, there can be no good 
reason for not asking parents or sponsors to answer each question 
asked of them separately. Consistency would require such. And the 
necessary need for emphasis would seem to plead for a separated re- 
sponse to all three questions of the Form for infant Baptism. 

This is not the place for an exposition of our Form for Baptism, 
although it will be agreed by all who are able to judge that there is 
a real and urgent need for an exposition of these and other forms. 
Those who are able to read Dutch will find a very thorough and 
helpful commentary of these forms in Dr. B. Wielenga’s Ons Doops- 
fomulier. Dr. Bouwman in his Ger. Kerkrecht, Vol II, pp. 244-264 
gives explanatory notes that merit much appreciation. 


ARTICLE LIX. 

Adults are through Baptism incorporated into the Christian 
Church, and are accepted as members of the Church, and are 
therefore obliged also to partake of the Lord's Supper, which 
they shall promise to do at their Baptism. 

ADULT BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER 

In the Reformed Churches infant Baptism is the rule and adult 
Baptism the exception. The vast majority of members of a Reformed 
Church will have been incorporated into the Church organization 
through infant Baptism. Nevertheless, many are also added to the 
Churches by adult Baptism. The present article concerns the Baptism 
of adults. 

1. The age limit for infant Baptism. 

Again and again the question occurs: What is the age limit for 
infant Baptism? From the very days of the Reformation the age of 
14 years was regarded as the limit for infant or child Baptism. In 
other words if a boy or girl were 15 years or older, Baptism was not 
administered except upon personal profession of faith. However, no 
general and binding rule has ever been accepted. Some individuals 
mature much earlier than others. Some youths at the age of 12 or 13 
have a greater measure of maturity than others at 14 or 15. Each 
case must therefore be judged by itself. The general principle which 
should guide is this: Only such children should be received into the 
Church through infant Baptism who have not yet come to years of 
discretion, years of understanding. Thus, for example, if a youth of 
13 or 14 years appears to be developed beyond the average child of 
that age, able to grasp the fundamentals of Christianity, able to 
choose for himself and actually taking a stand of his own regarding 
the questions of sin and grace and related matters, then such a child 
should not be baptized upon application of its parents or sponsors, 
but only upon his own request and confession. At no time, seemingly, 


244 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


have the Reformed Churches baptized youths older than 14 years with 
infant Baptism, although children younger than 15 have been received 
through adult Baptism. 

This practice harmonizes well with the fact that, as Jansen points 
out,* the years of youth leading to full manhood or womanhood are 
generally agreed to divide themselves into three equal periods of 
seven years. The age of childhood comprising the years 1 to 7, the 
years of youth (boys and girls), ages 8 to 14, and the years of young 
manhood and young womanhood, the years 15 to 21. Regarding those 
belonging to the first group, 1-7, all agreed that these were as far 
as their years were concerned, rightful subjects of infant Baptism. 
Those of the last period, 15-21, were by common consent, admitted to 
the Church only through adult Baptism. But regarding those belong- 
ing to the second class, 8-14, there was some difference of opinion. 
Especially regarding youth of 12, 13, and 14 who were advanced be- 
yond the average of their age. But the practice of the Churches has 
been that these cases were dealt with according to providential cir- 
cumstances, as has been indicated above. However, it should be added 
that such older children were often questioned before their parents 
were permitted to present them for Baptism. Questions regarding 
the Ten Commandments, the Twelve Articles of Faith, and the Lord’s 
Prayer would be asked. Also questions touching the child’s attitude 
toward God and religion. If an older youth appeared to be unbeliev- 
ing, immoral, or hateful toward Christianity, infant Baptism would 
not be administered, even though the child was only 14 years or 
younger.** , 

2. Significance of the statement: “Adults are through Baptism incor- 
porated into the Christian Church, and are accepted as members of 
the Church.” 

The significance of this statement is that those who have come to 
years of discretion and comparative independence can only be admitted 
to Church membership by profession of faith and Baptism adminis- 
tered upon this profession. The term “Christian Church” as used in 
Article 59, does not stand on par with the expression “Church of 
Christ” as used in Article 1. The expression “Church of Christ” is 
used to indicate the body of believers living in a certain region or 
country. It does not as a rule refer to these believers as they are 
organized into a Church or Churches. (See comments. Article 1) 
The term “Christian Church” in the present article, however, refers to 
a specific congregation or organized Church. The opening provisions 
of Article 59 therefore simply specifies that adults who stand out- 
side of the organized Churches can only be incorporated into a local or 
particular Church upon confession and Baptism, and that thus they 
are admitted to full membership rights in the Church which so re- 
ceives them. A literal translation of Article 59 on this score would 
make this interpretation very evident. Literally we read: “Adults are 
to be incorporated into the Christian congregation by Baptism, and 
are thus to be accepted as members of the congregations.” He who 
has been granted adult Baptism thereby receives all the privileges of 
Church membership. He stands on par with those who were baptized 
in infancy and who in later years made profession of their faith. 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc.. 1923, p. 26. 

•• I>r. F. L. Rutgers: Kerkelyke Adviesen, II, 1921, p. 69. 


245 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

3. The obligation of those that are baptized as adults to partake of 
the Lord s Supper. 

Prior to the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, there seems to have been some 
uncertainty on this score. Some unbaptized individuals applied for 
Baptism perhaps because Church-membership was required to hold 
certain positions in civil government. For a time there was a very 
close relationship between Church and State and not to be a member 
of a Reformed Church would often spell disadvantage. Others re- 
quested Baptism because they desired to marry a young man or woman 
of the Reformed Churches and no ecclesiastical confirmation of mar- 
riage would be granted if one of the parties was outside of the 
Church. Then again, some youths were admitted to baptism at an 
early age and these sometimes hesitated to go to the Lord’s table 
forthwith. 

Some Churches had been too easy and slack regarding this matter. 
The question reached the Synod of Dort from more than one Par- 
ticular Synod, and the Synod of Dort answered by writing Article 59 
as we still have it today, into the Church Order. Henceforth, there- 
fore, only those who were competent to celebrate the Lord’s death at 
His table would be admitted to Baptism. The confession and walk of 
those who requested Baptism should be such that the Consistories 
could admit them to the Lord’s table. And those requesting and re- 
ceiving Baptism should realize that they were expected to come to the 
Lord’s Table. If they would not promise to partake of the Lord’s 
Supper regularly, they were not to be admitted to Baptism. 

This provision is sound. The two Sacraments signify and seal the 
same thing. They belong together. An adult who is not competent 
to celebrate the Lord’s Supper is also incompetent to receive Baptism. 
And one who is competent to receive Baptism is also competent to 
celebrate Holy Communion. 

In some of our Christian Reformed Churches a number of years 
ago individuals would be admitted to full membership privileges by 
making “profession of the truth.” The Dutch phrases used were: 
“Belydenis der leer,” or, “Belydenis der waarheid.” This was con- 
sidered to be profession of faith, made with the distinct understanding 
that the person making the profession, simply made an objective 
profession. He declared that he believed the Bible according to the 
Reformed conception but he made no appropriation of Christianity for 
himself. He did not profess to be a child of God, one saved from sin. 
And it was therefore distinctly understood that he would not be 
expected to come to Holy Communion. Many of these, we may believe, 
were at heart sincere children of God, although they did not dare to 
say so themselves. These were the victims of an unscriptural and un- 
reformed emphasis upon subjective “experiences.” These “experiences” 
of others were raised as standards and tests for true Christianity, al- 
though in many instances these experiences were of a very doubtful 
character and often contrary to God’s Word. But many of these who 
made “professions of the truth” were not God-fearing at heart. They 
were external and indifferent. 

The result of this practice of permitting people to make “profession 
of the truth” was that many in our Churches who had made profes- 
sion of faith never went to the Lord’s Table. There are still a few of 
this class left in some of our Churches. Needless to say that this 
whole type of profession of faith is contrary to the stipulation of 
Article 59. If those who are admitted to adult Baptism are expected 
to come to the Lord’s Table, then surely those likewise who make pro- 
fession of faith should celebrate our Lord’s death regularly. 


246 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


In some Churches of the Reformed faith, both here and in Europe, 
large numbers of those who make profession of faith never go to the 
Lord’s Supper. This is a sickly, unbiblical situation and should be 
counteracted with tender regard for the convictions of sincere be- 
lievers, but also with persistency and firmness. 

To be sure, we should keep balance and judge discriminately here. 
We should not merely urge all who have made profession of faith to 
celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Some members of the Church may be 
victimized by rationalism and unbelief to such an extent that they 
are not fit to approach the Lord’s Table. They should first, by God’s 
grace, overcome their unbelief regarding the very fundamentals of 
Christianity. And if one lives in spiritual indifference, he should like- 
wise overcome this spiritual indifference before partaking of the 
Lord’s Supper. And if one be remiss in his Christian conduct he 
should first repent of his sin and forsake his sin before coming to 
Holy Communion. One who would continue in his rationalistic indif- 
ference or unchristian conduct would soon become an object of dis- 
cipline. Persistency in sin requires that all membership rights be 
temporarily withdrawn from the guilty one, and ultimately these sins 
would require excommunication. Article 59 in no way means to say 
that God’s children are always fit to go to the Lord’s Table and that 
they must promise never to absent themselves. We must warn 
against a light and vain and unworthy approach unto the Lord’s 
Table. And we must urge believers who are worthy, to come with joy 
and gratitude, warning them against the evil of unwarranted ab- 
stinence. 

In keeping with the provisions of Article 59, the adult who is about 
to be baptized promises, in answer to the fourth question of the Form 
for the Baptism of Adults, that he will persevere “not only in the 
hearing of the divine Word, but also in the use of the Holy Supper.” 


ARTICLE LX 

The names of those Baptized , together with those of the 
parents, and likewise the date of birth and baptism , shall be 
recorded. 


RECORD OF BAPTISMS 

Article 60 provides for the registration of all baptized children. We 
shall first endeavor to answer the question why records should be 
kept, and secondly we shall note what specifically should be included 
in this registration. 

1. Why records should be kept. 

The Wezelian Convention already judged that proper registration 
of those baptized was necessary, in the first place for the sake of the 
Church and in the second place for the civil community. At present 
the civil governments all require that the birth of infants be properly 
recorded. Years ago this was not the case. So, for instance, in the 
Netherlands civil registration of births, names of parents, etc., began 
in 1811.* Previous to this time the government depended on the Church 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 269. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


247 


records if and when verification of year of birth or parentage was 
necessary. The relationship between Church and State being very 
close in post-Reformation days, the Churches adopted Article 60, not 
only for their own sake, but also for the sake of the government. 

In answer to the question why we keep baptismal records the 
obvious reply is simply: In order that each Church may know who 
have been baptized. Or, to state it differently: In order that each 
Church may know which children and young people belong to it by 
virtue of their Baptism and so that each Consistory may know which 
children and young people fall under its special care and jurisdiction. 
And in case Baptism has taken place upon presentation of witnesses 
or sponsors that the Church and Consistory may know who the in- 
dividuals are that promised to instruct the children in matters regard- 
ing the doctrine and significance of Baptism. 

Furthermore record is also kept in order that the Church may know 
when Baptism was administered. Those that come to years of dis- 
cretion and do not repent of sin and do not seek to come to a hearty 
appreciation of salvation by grace and all its implications should be 
admonished. And in this connection, office-bearers should know the 
age of non-professing members. 

Again, it often happens that children leave one congregation for 
another, together with their parents. The Baptism of such children 
together with the time of Baptism should be certified to the Church 
with which this removing family desires to affiliate. The same is true 
for young people who remove to other communities and come under 
the care and jurisdiction of another Church. Their Baptism, and the 
time of their Baptism, should be certified to their new Church. Unless 
a good record is kept proper certification cannot take place. 

2. That which should be recorded. 

In the first place as the article clearly requires and as stands to 
reason, “the names of those baptized" must be recorded. In the second 
place the names of the parents are to be recorded. Proper identifica- 
tion requires that the names of parents be recorded as well as the 
names of the children baptized. But this is not the only reason. Par- 
ents at the time of Baptism assumed some very solemn and meaning- 
ful vows. They make important promises before God and His Church 
regarding the training of their children. They assume certain weighty 
and definite obligations. The names of the parents are therefore also 
recorded in token of the fact that these parents have assumed these 
obligations. This secondary significance of the recording of the names 
of the parents becomes evident from the fact that the article used to 
read: “The names of those baptized, together with those of the par- 
ents and sponsors . . . shall be recorded." The names of these sponsors 
had to be recorded inasmuch as they had assumed solemn obligations 
toward the children concerned and not because of relationship or for 
reasons of identification. In our redaction of the Church Order (1914) 
we dropped the words “en getuigen” (and sponsors). The Churches of 
Holland have retained them. Most likely our Synod of 1914 deemed 
this provision antiquated and needless inasmuch as in our day only 
the parents assume the baptismal obligations and the whole institu- 
tion of sponsorships in connection with infant Baptism is out of date 
and out of use. But, as we have noted in our consideration of Article 
57, there still is room for baptismal sponsors in our Churches. When- 
ever children are of the “seed of the Church" and of God’s covenant 
and therefore entitled to Baptism but the parents are dead or incom- 
petent to assume the baptismal vows, sponsors must take the place 


248 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


of these parents. Consequently it might have been better if our Synod 
of 1914 had also retained the words “and sponsors,” or at least had 
given the following reading to this article: “The names of those bap- 
tized together with those of the parents or sponsors . . . shall be re- 
corded.” But even though sponsors are no longer mentioned in our 
60th article, whenever sponsors present a child for Baptism their 
names must be recorded in the baptismal book next to those which 
indicate the child’s parentage. 

The date of Baptism is to be recorded also. This is done for rea- 
sons already indicated above and for reasons of completeness. The 
article also requires that the date of birth be recorded. This part of 
the provision is new. It was not found in the article prior to 1914, 
and is not yet found in the redaction of the Netherland Churches. It 
is well to know the exact age of a baptized child or youth, and this 
slight addition of 1914 is therefore a good one. Perhaps we incor- 
porated it also because for secular affairs our members are often 
required to certify their exact age, and the civil records of birth 
are very incomplete. Consequently the Church officials are asked 
again and again to furnish a testimony as to some one’s date of birth. 

The records should be kept with accuracy and neatness. To facili- 
tate both accuracy and neatness every Church should have a good 
record book to begin with. There are loose-leaf binders on the market 
which are durable and neat and which help the recorder to keep the 
record up-to-date and accurate. Some prefer the card index system 
and much can doubtless be said in favor of this system. The main 
point however is not this or that particular system, although it counts, 
but punctuality and care. 

Are parents free to select from all kinds of names as they select a 
given name for their child? And must the Church baptize a child by 
whatever name parents may have selected? The naming of a child 
has rightly always been left to the parents. It is their privilege to 
name their children and not that of the state or the Church or any 
other agency. But this does not mean that Christian parents are not 
prevented by the very Christianity which they profess from giving 
certain names to their children. For example, no child should be 
called by the names of God. In the past some parents have used 
names as follows: Divine, Jesus, Immanuel. No one should consent to 
baptize a child by one of these names. Parents should also be dis- 
couraged from naming their children after angels inasmuch as these 
names are borrowed from a sinless domain, the sacredness of which 
would not be enhanced in our estimation and thought if its names 
were given to sinful beings. Nor would a Christian parent think of 
calling his child Cain, Judas, Jezebel, etc. 

Years ago, particularly among the Puritans of New England, many 
parents named their children after Bible characters such as Abraham, 
Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, etc., or after certain Christian virtues 
as Charity, Love, Grace, Temperance, Hope. Some of these names are 
still very common. Selecting names from the Bible is certainly a great 
deal better than the choosing of names from present day novels or 
even from among movie stars as many are inclined to do in our day. 
It is also far better to name our children after Bible characters than 
to name them after outstanding men of unbelief such as Darwin, 
Marx, etc. For the rest the Bible permits parents to choose names as 
they see fit. Many N. T. believers had pagan names but the Bible 
nowhere urges these converts to adopt new names. We should never 
become overly scrupulous on this score. 

Why is only the given name mentioned at the time of baptism and 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


249 


not the family name ? Doubtless the primary explanation for this fact 
is a historical one. Years ago people had no family names but only 
their own personal given names. These were mentioned at baptism, 
and this custom continued also after family names were introduced. 
But the usage also has this significance, that the given name is the 
strictly personal name of the individual, whereas he holds the family 
name in common with many others. By mentioning only the given 
name or names the personal significance of the baptismal assurances 
st?nd out all the more. But even so we know of no serious argument 
by reason of which the complete name should not be pronounced at 
the time of Baptism. To do so would help larger Churches to know 
who the parents are which are having their children baptized. The 
congregation should know this. The parents at the time of Baptism 
assume certain vows, not only before God, but also before the Church. 
Consequently the Church should know who they are that have as- 
sumed solemn obligations. One way in which this object can be at- 
tained still more satisfactorily, however, is to have the Minister an- 
nounce the names of the parents who are presenting their children 
for Baptism, just before the Form is being read, and in the order in 
which the children are to be baptized. In smaller Churches such 
measures are not out of place, but less necessary. 

Nearly every Church, if not every Church, keeps not only a record 
of Baptisms, but a complete membership record. These membership 
records will, as a rule, give the full names of parents and children to- 
gether with a record of the Baptisms, professions of faith, date of 
birth, removal through death, departure to another congregation, etc. 
Many of these matters are not required in Article 60 of the Church 
Order, but are nevertheless things that ought to be recorded and kept. 
We would commend our Churches for keeping these complete records. 


ARTICLE LXI 

None shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper except those 
who , according to the usage of the Church with which they 
unite themselves , have made a confession of the Reformed 
Religion, besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without 
which those who come from other Churches shall not be ad- 
mitted . 

ADMISSION TO THE LORD’S SUPPER 

The next four articles concern the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 
Article 61 concerns admission to the Lord's Table; Article 62 refers 
to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated; Article 
63 concerns the frequency of administering the Lord’s Supper; and 
Article 64 stipulates a condition for the administration of Holy Com- 
munion. 

In these four articles not nearly all questions of a church govern- 
mental nature pertaining to the Lord’s Supper are covered. The 
Church Order merely indicates the fundamental principles which 
should guide us. It is, as has been said before, not a book of detailed 
rules and regulations to which one can merely turn when an emergency 
arises and find the solution in ready made form. The Church Order 
does not aim to dictate as to all manner of details, which may be very 


250 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


unessential. Thus the Church Order safeguards our liberties, al- 
though it at the same time safeguards us against dangerous and un- 
JBiblical policies. This it does by clearly and briefly putting down 
for us the governing principles which must be applied with discrimi- 
ation and care in every case. 

Article 61 regulates two matters: The admission to the Lord’s Table 
by profession of faith of those who are members by Baptism, and the 
admission to the Lord’s Table of those who come from other Churches 
of the denomination. 

1. Admission to the Lord’s Supper of members by Baptism. 

Article 61 makes it very nlain that not all are welcome at the Lord’s 
Table in our Churches. The Sacraments are signs and seals of the 
remission of our sins by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Now 
only those who are true believers have their sins forgiven. Con- 
sequently, the signs and seals of this forgiveness should be given only 
to those concerning whom we have reasons to believe that they are 
true believers. 

Already at the Convention of Wezel, 1568, the question arose; who 
are to be admitted to Holy Communion? The Convention answered: 
No one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Table unless he first shall have 
made profession of faith and shall have submitted himself to the dis- 
cipline of the Church. This ruling was re-affirmed by the Synod of 
1578 (Dordrecht) in slightly different words, and rewritten by the 
Middelburg Synod of 1581 in the wording as we still have it in Article 
61 today. 

From the foregoing it becomes evident that the Reformed Churches 
from the Reformation era on have held that attendance at the Lord’s 
Table is not free to all. It is not a matter which is to be left to 
the judgment of individuals. The office-bearers are guardians over 
the Lord’s Table. They must only admit those whom they believe to 
be worthy. Erastus and the Remonstrants — those defending the tenets 
of Arminianism — held that attendance or non-attendance at the Lord’s 
Table should be left to the individual conscience. Many Christians all 
over the world still defend this theory. Some adhering to the Re- 
formed faith seem to hold to this theory. For example, in many 
Reformed Churches of southern Holland large numbers of confessing 
members seldom come to the Lord’s Table. The same is true for the 
Gereformeerde Gemeenten, “Oud-Gereformeerden,” or Netherland-Re- 
formed Churches. Members of these and other groups go to the Lord’s 
Table if they have certain subjective experiences, and abstain if these 
are lacking at the time the Lord’s Supper is observed. If they are 
spiritually at high-tide they partake. If they are spiritually depressed 
and at low-tide they abstain. But this practice does not harmonize 
with the position which our Reformed leaders took from the very 
outset. The attitude and policy referred to arose when spiritual life 
began to decline in the Reformed Churches, and was bom in part 
from the re-action to worldlimindedness and shallowmindedness. But 
is it not typical of the historical Reformed position. In our own 
Churches there are still a few who, though they have made confes- 
sion of faith, seldom or never come to the Lord’s Table. In 1904 our 
Synod decided that Consistories should not receive into full member- 
ship those who did not intend to partake of the Lord’s Table regularly. 
(Acts, Synod, Art. 125) 

Yet not all baptized members of the Church were permitted to go 
to the Lord’s Tabled If all baptized children would be true to their 
baptism and manifest true faith in Christ and loyalty to His Word in 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


251 


conduct, then as soon as children would come to years of understand- 
ing they might approach unto the Lord’s Supper without first securing 
permission to do so. But conditions are never ideal. There is always 
some chaff mixed with the wheat. There are Esaus among covenant- 
keeping young people in every Church. And so Voetius, in answer to 
the question whether not all baptized individuals should be consid- 
ered as entitled to partake of the Lord’s Table, answered, “No.” Said 
he in substance: Faith may be present potentially without having as 
yet developed into actual faith. And actual faith is necessary for the 
proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The essence of faith may be 
present by regeneration, but the fruit of regeneration, conversion, 
must also be present.* 

Ordinarily we speak of confession or profession of faith, whereas 
Article 61 speaks of “confession of the Reformed Religion.” There is 
no conflict here. He who makes “confession of the Reformed Re- 
ligion,” acknowledges all the essentials of the gospel of salvation with 
application to himself. So does he who makes confession or 
profession of faith.” But the phrase “confession of the Reformed Re- 
ligion” does include a little more than the expression “confession or 
profession of faith.” The phrase of our Church Order implies 
that he who makes confession of faith in our Churches must 
not only assent with self-appropriation to the general truths of 
Christianity but he must be able to declare that he believes the Re- 
formed interpretation to be correct, Biblical. Some Church groups do 
not require assent to their particular creed as a condition for mem- 
bership. Thus the Presbyterian Churches generally do require of 
office-bearers that they agree with the specific doctrines of the 
Church, but the ordinary members need not declare agreement. 
Though they should question and reject some Reformed positions, yet 
they would be entitled to membership. 

It should be plain however that a Church, if its members are ad- 
mitted without confessing the Reformed fundamentals, cannot remain 
Reformed. After all the individual members, and not the clergy and 
the eldership, constitute the Church. And the confessional standards 
of a Church can only be Forms of Unity when the membership con- 
fesses these standards. If the members of a Church do not confess 
its standards to be biblical the Church loses its power and also its 
raison d'etre. A Church which does not require of its members that 
they agree with its doctrinal tenets opens the doors to those who ad- 
vocate false doctrines; heresy is bound to enter in, and eventually 
modernism may even predominate. 

We may therefore thank God that our Churches still expect our 
young people — and all others that desire membership in our Churches 
— as they make confession of faith, to agree with the specific doc- 
trines of our Churches. Not as if there is no room for difference of 
opinion within the walls of our ecclesiastical city. There certainly is 
and should be. But regarding the great doctrine of the Church of 
Christ as these find a clear expression in our doctrinal Standards, all 
those that seek and receive full membership rights in our Churches 
should be agreed. The peace and purity of the Churches require that 
all members be fully agreed on all vital, major, questions of doctrine. 
No Church can reasonably expect to remain pure and loyal which 
admits to membership such as are at odds with the Church on one or 
more vital doctrines. And this consistent position of our Churches 
does not spell injustice toward any child of God. They who do not 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923, p. 271. 


252 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


agree with us should simply seek and join a Church with which they 
are agreed. Let one who is methodistic in doctrine join a Methodist 
Church. Let one who is baptistic in doctrine affiliate with a Baptist 
Church, etc. Our Churches have always taken the stand expressed 
in Article 61, although we believe with all our hearts that there is a 
holy Catholic Church and that the Christian Church is by no means 
limited to the Christian Reformed denomination together with some 
other local Reformed organizations. Prof. Bouwman claims that for 
this very reason the first question of the Form for Confession of Faith 
speaks of the articles of the Christian faith, taught in this Christian 
Church, and not of the Reformed faith and the Reformed Church.* 
We thus give expression to one unity with the entire Christian Church, 
especially in regard to the Sacraments. We do not desire to seDarate 
ourselves from the general Christian Church, although we take a de- 
cided stand when testing those who ask to be admitted to the Lord’s 
Supper. 

Not only must those who receive admittance to the Lord’s Table 
make confession of the Reformed religion, but they must also be “re- 
puted to be of a godly walk.” They who make confession of faith 
and thereby receive admission to the Lord’s Table, must not merely 
profess to be Christians but their past conduct must be an evidence 
of this fact. They must be known as Christians. One who says that 
he believes but fails to manifest his faith is to be rejected. Although 
one should make a beautiful confession but should fail to live in keep- 
ing with the confession, he is to be rejected until his life, his conduct, 
sets the seal of genuineness upon his confession. Doctrine and life 
should therefore both receive proper attention. 

It is well for our Consistories to be very careful on this score. God 
judges the hearts, it is true. But we should avoid all that may en- 
courage externalism. We should question young people and all that 
come to make confession of faith personally. In larger Churches it 
may be necessary that an able Committee of the Consistory be ap- 
pointed to confer with all applicants personally. When a number of 
applicants are questioned at the same time it is very difficult to say 
whether their replies regarding personal piety and faith are really 
their own. And no Consistory should be satisfied if applicants are 
only able to recite the Compendium. Doctrinal knowledge and purity 
is important. But personal piety is no less important. Neither should 
questions regarding personal piety be couched in such words that 
applicants can merely reply by a very evident “yes” or “no.” Let 
the questions be formulated in such a way that the applicants must 
speak for themselves and so that they are required to formulate their 
replies. Of course, every Consistory or committee must exercise dis- 
cretion. Some applicants will have very little to say. Their natural 
ability for self-expression may be very limited. They may be ex- 
tremely nervous. In such cases, if the Consistory is convinced that 
the applicant is sincere, and if his past conduct reveals the fear of 
the Lord, the Consistory will be lenient and exercise charity and good- 
will. But at the other hand, if an applicant gives just reasons for 
doubt he should not be admitted presently. The Minister or a com- 
mittee should instruct him further, and prayerfully labor with him, 
until such a time that he can be admitted without hesitation. 

We do not mean to say that youthful applicants and babes in Christ 
must be judged by standards which apply to Christians which are 
fully matured. Not at all. But the Consistories must have good 


• Bouwman: Gher. Xerkrecht, II, pp. 382, 3. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


253 


reasons to believe that applicants are children of God, and that they 
have such a measure of knowledge and understanding of biblical doc- 
trine as may reasonably be expected. 

There is a synodical ruling which requires that Consistories shall 
ask every person making confession of faith whether or not the ap- 
plicant is a member of any secret, oath-bound society. (Acts, Synod 
1967, Art. 15 and Acts, Synod 1900, Article 84) Those who are lodge 
members are not to be admitted. One main reason for withholding the 
Lord’s Supper and membership rights from lodge-members is that the 
lodge is representative of a false, anti-Christian religion. The lodges 
teach that if a man is a good lodge-member, even though he fails to 
believe in Jesus Christ as the only Savior, he will be saved. Conse- 
quently lodge-membership and Church-membership cannot go together. 

The Synod of 1928, faced with the fact that worldly-mindedness was 
very clearly on the increase in our Churches, made the following 
resolution: “Consistories are instructed to inquire of those who ask 
to be examined previous to making public confession of their faith 
and partaking of the Lord's Supper as to their stand and conduct in 
the matter of worldly amusements, and, if it appears that they are 
not minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration, 
not to permit their public confession.” (Acts, Synod 1928, Article 96) 
This resolution should not be interpreted legalistically. Synod of 
1928 did not try to write a catalogue of sinful practices. The resolu- 
tion quoted is Hie sixth adopted regarding the problem of worldliness. 
Already in the third resolution Synod of 1928 spoke as follows: “Synod 
urges all our leaders and all our people to pray and labor for the 
awakening and deepening of spiritual life in general, and to be keenly 
aware of the absolute indispensability of keeping our religious life 
vital and powerful, through daily prayer, the earnest searching of the 
Scriptures, and through engaging in practical Christian works, which 
are the best antidote against worldliness.” 

Synod of 1928 took these and other praiseworthy resolutions with a 
view to worldly-mindedness and worldly amusements in general, al- 
though it mentioned in particular the familiar trio of theater-attend- 
ance, dancing, and card-playing. 

None of us would care to maintain that all amusements are in them- 
selves evil. There are many forms of amusements which are whole- 
some and good. Neither would we care to claim that all amusements 
which are contaminated with sin, and which are used by the devil to 
further his cause, are in themselves altogether evil. But we do main- 
tain that all amusements which clearly hurt our spiritual life and 
tend to stem normal, Biblical, spiritual devotion, and which break 
down the God-built barriers of spiritual separation between the 
Church and the world, should be left alone by all Christians. (Cf. 
I Cor. 8:9; James 4:4; Col. 3:1, 2; Matt. 16:24; 18:8, 9; etc.) 

Anyone who desires to indulge in practices which have constituted 
a damaging, down-breaking force to spiritual living, and who is not 
ready to forsake these things after the sinfulness of these amuse- 
ments and their evil influence has been clearly demonstrated to him, 
by that very attitude gives just reasons to doubt the sincerity of his 
heart, and just reasons to question his spiritual fitness for admission 
to the Lord’s Table. Consequently, our Churches are right in not per- 
mitting to the Lord’s Table those who do not intend to lead a life of 
Christian separation. 

The “Report on Worldly Amusements” found in the Agenda for the 


254 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Synod of 1928 should be read and prayerfully studied by all who ques- 
tion the correctness of our stand on this score.* 

Confession before the Consistory or a committee of the Consistory 
is only preliminary to the real confession of faith, which takes place 
before the whole Church. For this reason the names of those who 
have made confession before the Consistory are announced to the 
Church in order that those who may have objections against their 
admission may register these with the Consistory. For admission to 
the Lord’s Table and full membership rights must take place with the 
approval of the whole Church. The names of applicants are usually 
announced on two successive Sundays. This is no requirement of the 
Church Order. One announcement may be enough, especially in 
smaller Churches. But the general custom of announcing the names 
on two different Sundays is a good usage. 

Formerly part of the actual questioning would also take place be- 
fore the whole congregation, but this public examination was found 
to be impracticable. Young people with timid dispositions and 
nervously inclined dreaded this public questioning. Synod of Dor- 
drecht, 1574, therefore introduced our present procedure. The actual 
examination takes place before the Consistory or a committee of the 
Consistory, and before the congregation the applicants merely answer 
affirmatively to a number of formulated questions. 

We have a Form for the Public Profession of Faith. This form is 
of recent origin, having been approved by our Synod of 1932. It may 
be found on page 86 of the Psalter Hymnal, appended section. Our 
Churches formulated or modeled this beautiful and meaningful form 
after one adopted by the Reformed Churches of Holland in 1923. 

The expression “with which they unite themselves,” as this occurs 
in Article 61, might lead some to think that making confession of 
faith is really “joining the Church.” It is sometimes said among us 
that those who make profession of faith and receive permission to go 
to the Lords’ Table are “joining the Church.” This expression has 
been rightly condemned. It comes to us from Churches who do not 
have the Reformed covenant conception regarding children of believ- 
ing parents. Not only are those who have made confession of faith 
members of the Church organization to which they belong, but bap- 
tized children and young people are also Church members. The full 
membership rights are not theirs. But there is a definite tie that binds 
them to the Church organization in whose midst they live. They are 
not like strangers and outsiders. They are in the Church by virtue 
of their Baptism. Consequently they cannot join themselves to the 
Church by confession of faith. If I am already a citizen of the United 
States while still a mere child, I cannot become a citizen of the 
United States when I am of age. I can acknowledge my citizen- 
ship and I can receive my full citizenship rights, but I cannot become 
what I already am. Thus they who make confession of faith do not 
join the Church, although they do receive full membership rights and 
openly acknowledge their membership obligations. 

The expression “with which they unite themselves” as found in this 
article was perhaps incorporated here inasmuch as many in the early 
years of the Reformation came from the Roman Church and actually 
united themselves with the Church in question when confession of 
faith was made. Article 61, let us remember, was formulated long 
before the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. If ever Article 61 should be re- 


* This Report has been separately published by the Rev. John De Haan, 
Jr., of Grand Rapids, Michigan. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


255 


vised it might be well to make it read somewhat as follows: “None 
shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who, according 
to the usage of the Church with which they stand connected by rea- 
son of their Baptism, shall have made confession . . 

To what does the phrase, “. . . according to the usage of the Church,” 
refer ? The methods of receiving young people and other non-confess- 
ing members into full membership of the Churches differed on some 
points in various Churches. Some examined by means of a committee 
of the Consistory; some Consistories interrogated applicants before 
the whole body of the Consistory; still others examined their appli- 
cants in the presence of all the Church members. Also in regard to 
the announcement made and time intervening between private and 
public confession there was some variation. As in numerous other 
matters, the Churches wanted to leave as many liberties to the in- 
dividual Churches as they possibly could. Each Church established 
its own rule. Today we have more uniformity. But we have no 
forced uniformity. Every Church still has the right to arrange vari- 
ous details regarding confession of faith as it sees fit. 

Article 61 definitely commits our Churches against the practice of 
“open communion.” Those who practice or advocate “open commun- 
ion” often defend their stand by claiming that Holy Communion is 
the Lord’s Supper, and not the supper of the Christian Reformed 
Churches, and that we may therefore not exclude those who belong 
to other Churches. This argument is, it seems to us, rather childlike. 
Of course, Holy Communion is an institution of our Lord. But every 
Church and every body of office-bearers has a solemn duty to guard 
the sacredness of this Supper of our Lord, and to restrain unworthy 
persons from increasing their guilt of sin by partaking of this holy 
institution. Essentially we bar no one, except unbelievers, from the 
Lord’s Table. The greatest of sinners are welcome, if only they will 
confess their sins and manifest faith and sincerity. Let those who de- 
sire to celebrate Holy Communion take the proper steps to gain per- 
mission to share this great blessing. Let no one desire to set aside the 
offices which Christ has placed as guardians over His Table. And if 
one be a sincere believer but not in agreement with the doctrinal or 
practical position of our Churches, we have neither the desire nor the 
power to restrain him from going to the Lord’s Table. Only let him 
celebrate the Lord’s Supper with those with whom he agrees and ac- 
cording to the dictates of his own conscience. Thus he will promote 
good order and peace. 

Fundamentally the difference between those who advocate “open 
communion” and those who maintain “close communion,” is a ques- 
tion of recognition and non-recognition of the authority of Christ 
vested in the office-bearers. We and other Churches which maintain 
close communion say that Christ placed the office-bearers in charge 
of the Sacraments. The sanctity of the Sacraments must be zealously 
guarded by the servants of Christ. Whether or not one shall approach 
unto the Lord’s Table is not simply up to the individual. He must 
recognize the officers appointed for this work by Christ. Neither may 
any Consistory delegate this charge to the individuals by announcing 
that all who are members of some other Church in good and regular 
standing and desirous of observing the Lord’s Supper are invited to 
partake. This is not as bad as an unconditional invitation, but it is a 
form of open communion, for the question of attendance or non-at- 
tendance at the Lord’s Table is after all left solely to the judgment of 
the individuals concerned. One altogether unworthy may thus be 
given permission to partake. This would be a desecration of the 


256 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Lord’s Table which might have been avoided, and an opening of an 
avenue of sin by the office-bearers to the unworthy participant. 

Is there any room for “visitors” at the Lord’s Table in our 
Churches? Yes, there is. We should not become sentimental in the 
unwholesome sense of the word and think that it would be terrible 
if a believer of another Church, who partakes regularly in his own 
Church, should not partake at a Church which he happens to visit 
while Communion is being celebrated. But if a visitor has a desire 
to celebrate the Lord’s death with the congregation with which he is 
to worship, then let him speak to the office-bearers before and, if 
possible during the week, or, if need be, just prior to the service. 
Unless one or more Consistory members know him personally, he 
should if he is able, bring someone with him who can give testimony 
regarding his faith and life. No Consistory will turn down a re- 
quest of this kind, but gladly grant it. If this procedure is too much 
trouble to the individual concerned his desire is not very strong. Let 
him in that case merely worship sympathetically and prayerfully, 
without seeking permission to partake. 

If young people are to make confession of faith intelligently and 
sincerely they must be well-informed. For the sake of our Churches 
and for the sake of our members our Churches have ever worked for 
thorough indoctrination. The catechism class has been the main 
means of indoctrination in the past. Catechetical instruction is in- 
dispensable to the welfare of our Churches as Reformed Churches. 
Synod of 1912 (Art. 57) appealed most earnestly and urgently to all 
Classes and Consistories to guard against the danger of relegating 
to the background, or of wholly neglecting catechetical instruction. 
And Synod of 1928 recommended a nine-month catechism season. And 
while our Churches were still in their early youth they already ruled 
that parents who wilfully neglected to send their children to cate- 
chism made themselves worthy of discipline, even to the extent of 
excommunication. And young people who refused to attend catechism 
although they had not yet made confession of faith were likewise to 
be disciplined.* 

2. Admittance to the Lord's Supper to members of other 
affiliated Churches. 

The concluding statement of Article 61 merely reads: “without 
which those who come from other Churches shall not be admitted.” 
Those who have already made profession of faith before another 
Church and have therefore been admitted to the Lord’s Table in this 
other Church, shall not be permitted to go to the Lord's Table in a 
Church of which they are not members except they be reputed to be 
of a godly walk. That is the sense of this concluding provision of 
Article 61. The reference is to such as remove from one locality to 
another. If someone had moved to another town or city, he was not 
to be accepted as a member of the Reformed Church of his new home 
and to receive permission to go to the Lord’s Table unless he could 
give witness regarding his godliness. This witness was to be deliv- 
ered by means of a certificate of membership, an attestation, or 
Church letter. Of these Article 82 speaks specifically and consequently 
we shall not go into details here. 

Note that grammatically Article 61 only requires that those that 
come to us from another of our Churches be “reputed to be of a godly 
walk”. Soundness in doctrine is not included. However, the context 


• Cf. Algemeene Bepalingen, 62 and 62a, 1881. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


267 


speaks of both, soundness in doctrine and godliness of life. Both 
should be certified. This is the evident significance of the article. 
For both are required of members by Baptism applying for admis- 
sion to the Lord’s Supper. Then why should not both be required of 
those coming from elsewhere? Article 82 also makes this very plain. 

At first members from elsewhere would be accepted upon their own 
testimony. But a number of unworthy persons who were looking for 
money and support would move from place to place and with pious 
talk gain the confidence of the believers. To check this abuse the rule 
of Article 61 was adopted. At first the Churches had to be lenient 
in this respect, for if fugitives from Roman civil authorities were 
found with membership attestations on their person, escape was im- 
possible. Some had to flee for their lives and could not be expected 
to carry a certificate of membership. Consequently the Churches were 
very lenient and often gave applicants the benefit of the doubt. But 
as the persecution subsided the rule of Article 61 was generally en- 
forced. 

The article speaks simply of “other Churches.” The reference is 
not to any other Churches in general, but to other affiliated Churches, 
other particular Reformed Churches. The denomination consisted of 
various individual Churches which all agreed in doctrine and church 
government. These Churches therefore formed a logical unit, and 
consequently lived and labored together. They agreed to honor each 
other’s letters of testimony concerning members moving from one 
locality to another. Article 61 in no way means to say that our fore- 
fathers accepted such as belonged to a Lutheran Church or an Ana- 
baptistic group upon the mere testimony of a letter from one of these 
Churches. And thus the matter stands today. We receive each other’s 
members as Christian Reformed Churches upon letters of testimony 
to each other. And without such letters of testimony no Church is 
to receive a member from one of our other Churches. That is the 
point here. 

It may be remarked here that our fathers found a precedent for 
letters of testimony in the Bible itself. (Cf. Acts 18:27 and Rom. 
16:1.) 

Some practical considerations which concern the matter of Church 
letters will come up for consideration when we discuss Article 82. 

3. Admittance to the Lord’s Supper of those who come from Churches 
of other denominations. 

A letter of testimony presented by a member of one of the Re- 
formed Churches of the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken van 
Nederland) is accepted by us just as certificates from one of our own 
Churches. All letters coming to us from Churches of other related 
denominations are not accepted forthwith. Applicants for membership 
presenting letters of testimony from a Church belonging neither to 
our own denomination nor to the Gereformeerde Kerken van Neder- 
land, are first to be examined as to their doctrinal soundness and 
their fitness to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The form of their ad- 
mission is left to the Consistory, but the congregation must be given 
an opportunity to present possible objections. (Acts, Synod 1904, 
Article 125.) Schaver in his “Christian Reformed Church Order 
(Zondervan’s, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1937) gives us a list of related 
denominations with which at one time or another, our Synods have 
decided to establish correspondence. We quote: 

“(1) The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (Acts 1879, Art. 
18); (2) The Old Reformed Churches of East Frisia and Bentheim 


258 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


(now united with the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, J.L.3.)» 
and the Evangelical Church in Silesia (Acts 1879, Art. 18a); (3) The 
Reformed Churches of South Africa (Acts 1879, Art. 18); (4) The 
Reformed Church in America (Acts 1893, p. 53); (5) The United 
Presbyterian Church (Acts 1898, p. 53); (6) Synod and General Synod, 
Reformed Presbyterian Churches (Acts 1900, p. 52); (7) Associate 
Presbyterian Church (Acts 1900, p. 52); (8) The Christian Reformed 
Church in the Netherlands (Acts 1910, p. 60; Acts 1936, p. 97).” 

In regard to the newly organized Presbyterian Church of America 
(1936), now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America, our 
Synod of 1936 decided: “Inasmuch as the Presbyterian Church of 
Ainerica has not finally adopted its Constitution, Synod decides to 
postpone the question of correspondence with said body. This does 
not exclude, however, the sending of greetings and the sending of 
delegates to each other’s major assemblies.” (Acts of Synod, 1936, 
Article 143.) 

Sad to say, many of these related denominations are far from being 
Reformed. There is much doctrinal laxness and consequent impurity 
among many of them. Consequently though we acknowledge all the 
good which may be found in many of these Churches, and though we 
appreciate the love and loyalty to our Reformed conceptions still 
present in these groups, yet laxness in doctrine and life prevents us 
from honoring membership certificates coming from these Churches 
at face value. 

As a rule members from any of these Churches who apply for 
membership with one of our Churches will be visited by a competent 
committee of the Consistory. This committee reports its findings to 
the Consistory, and if the Consistory finds no objections to accept the 
applicant announcement is made to the Church, stating that unless 
valid objections are presented to the Consistory, applicants will be 
admitted at the next meeting of that body. However, if a Consistory 
deems it necessary and so desires the applicants are requested to 
appear before the whole Consistory, there to be questioned and con- 
ferred with. 

Those who apply for membership in one of our Churches, and previ- 
ously members of a non-related and unreformed Church, are first to 
be instructed. For instance those who were formerly Methodists, Bap- 
tists, etc., should be carefully and faithfully labored with. Age and 
circumstances should be considered. But those who are able should 
be thoroughly instructed in the doctrine of our Churches, either by 
means of a catechism class or privately. All those that come to us 
from non-reformed Churches should signify assent to the doctrines 
of our Churches publicly. Whether in every instance the Form for 
Public Profession of Faith should be used we would not determine, 
although it will be found appropriate in most instances. But accept- 
ance should be in the meeting of all the believers, so that all may 
hear that the applicant professes the true faith. Many who come 
from related and nominally Reformed Churches should likewise be 
received publicly. This will be, we believe, to the welfare of both 
applicant and Church. 

In every case those coming from other denominations should be 
carefully asked regarding their attitude toward the lodge, and many 
other practical attitudes and conceptions of life, such as Sabbath ob- 
servance, worldly amusements, etc. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


259 


ARTICLE LXII. 

Every Church shall administer the Lord's Supper in such a 
manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, 
however , that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God's 
Word be not changed and all superstition avoided , and that at 
the conclusion of the sermon arid the usual prayers, the Form 
for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, together with the 
prayer for that purpose, shall be read. 

METHOD OF ADMINISTERING THE LORD’S SUPPER 

Regarding the essence of the Lord’s Supper the Reformed Churches 
differed radically from the Roman Churches. Concerning the com- 
munion table the issues were very pronounced and clear-cut. It stands 
to reason that this difference regarding the essence of the Lord’s 
Table should reflect itself in the method of administration of this 
Sacrament. 

1. Matters left to the judgment of the particular Churches. 

One of the first practical questions which confronted the Reforma- 
tion Churches was this: Should communicants stand, sit, kneel, or 
walk as they receive the bread and wine? Out of respect for the 
Lord’s Table some believers desired to kneel while they partook of 
the elements. The Synod of Dort, 1578, raised its voice against this 
practice and ruled against it because of the danger of superstition. 
In the Roman Church communicants knelt and venerated the elements, 
which really meant that they prayed to the bread and wine which 
they believed to have been changed into the true body and blood of 
Christ. This idolatrous practice and conception our fathers naturally 
condemned, and they wanted nothing of the kind in the purified 
Churches. Therefore kneeling at the Lord’s Table was ruled out. 

Whether the communicants should sit or stand while the Minister 
gave them, each individually, the bread and the wine, or whether the 
communicants should walk past the Minister to receive the elements 
from his hand, these questions were left to the particular Churches 
to answer as they saw fit. Seemingly the custom of walking past the 
Minister to receive the bread and wine was soon discarded. At least 
the first regular Synod, Emden 1571, spoke only of standing or sit- 
ting, and left the choice between these two to the particular Churches. 
It also appears that the usage of sitting soon became common, for 
the Synod of Dort, 1574, judged that the standing posture was the 
most appropriate at the Lord’s Table, but cautioned not to introduce 
standing at the Lord’s Table abruptly, inasmuch as the sitting posture 
was already in common practice, but to bring about the change in 
this respect whenever such could be done conveniently. But the fol- 
lowing Synod judged that it made no difference whether communi- 
cants sat or stood as they received the elements. Eventually the cus- 
tom of sitting became common. 

Another matter regarding -which there is some difference, and 
which has been left to the judgment of each individual Church, is the 
question whether all the communicants shall partake at one and the 
same time, or whether they shall communicate in groups. In some 
of our Churches separate groups of believers come forward and take 
their place at or near the communion table and thus celebrate the 
Lord’s Supper as a group. After the first distinct administration, a 
second follows for a second group; then a third, and so on, until all 


260 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


communicants have participated. These distinct servings or adminis- 
trations in the one communion service are designated as “tafels,” i.e., 
tables, in the Dutch language. In certain large Churches even a few 
years ago as many as twelve or more distinct tables or administra- 
tions occurred in one communion service. These long drawn-out serv- 
ices were not as edifying as the occasion demanded. At present many 
Churches have but one administration for every communion service. 
All communicants seat themselves toward the front of the church, 
within the limits of a designated area, and are thus served as one 
body. In some instances there are no designated pews for the com- 
municants. The bread and the wine is merely passed through every 
pew, and communicants are seated all over the church building inter- 
mingling with non-communicants. 

We deem it a good thing that the old method of maintaining sev- 
eral distinct administrations in one and the same communion service 
has been discontinued. But there was something in this old way which 
had real merit. Separate, small group administrations required the 
believers to arise and to go forward to take their place at the Lord’s 
Table as a distinct act, before the whole congregation. There was a 
confession in that act. He who arose and walked forward thereby 
virtually declared : “As a poor sinner, guilty and doomed, I take refuge 
in Christ. I need Jesus. I believe on Him as my Saviour and Lord.” 
The old way, moreover, introduced an element of self-expression into 
the service which is worthy of appreciation and which was favorable 
in its reaction on the communicants. Consequently we think that 
those Churches which have maintained the two or three distinct ad- 
ministrations for each celebration have done wisely. They have ruled 
out the un-edifying objections against numerous “tables”, but have 
conserved and saved the good points of this method. This method is 
easily followed by simply setting aside a small number of pews, near 
the communion table, as “communion pews.” The rule should be that 
communicants who wish to partake of the second or third adminis- 
tration do not come forward until those who communicated just be- 
fore them are back in their seats. 

If a Church maintains only one administration for every communion 
service, then yet the communicants should occupy a designated area. 
To pass the bread and wine through the whole church auditorium 
makes it well nigh impossible for a Consistory to control communion 
attendance. And parties not entitled to the Sacrament may do so 
with little or no difficulty if the elements are passed along every pew. 

Of old it has been the custom in our Churches that the communi- 
cants bring an offering of gratitude for the snecial blessing given by 
God through the Lord’s Supper. This is, beyond doubt, a noble prac- 
tice and should be maintained. Many Churches set this offering aside 
for the needy poor. And it is well that we should remember the 
needy members of Christ’s body as we sit at His Table. This is a 
laudable and appropriate way of exercising communion of saints. 
Some place these communion gifts in the budget fund. This practice 
we would condemn. A thank offering for the work of missions is far 
more appropriate. 

Another matter which, according to our Synod of 1920, should be 
left to the judgment of the particular Churches, is the use of com- 
mon or of individual cups. Some have questioned the claim that 
Christ at the institution of the Lord’s Supper used a common cup. 
It seems to us that the words of Matt. 26:27 and Mark 14:23 leave 
no room for doubt. Concerning the cup which Christ took we read, 
“He gave to them: and they all drank of it.” Concerning these words 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


261 


Edersheim (speaking of the Passover) says: ‘‘I have often expressed 
my conviction that, in the ancient Services there was considerable 
elasticity and liberty left to the individual. At present a cup is filled 
for each individual but Christ seems to have passed the one cup 
round among the Disciples. Whether such was sometimes done, or 
the alteration was designedly, and as we readily see, significantly, 
made by Christ, cannot now be determined." (Edersheim: The Life 
and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Vol. II, page 496, footnote 3). 

We believe that it ought to be granted that the common cup at 
the Lord’s Table is expressive of Christian unity even though one 
should desire to question whether Christ actually used the common 
cup with the deliberate purpose of giving expression to this Christian 
unity. Some say that Christ used the common cup merely because 
it was the custom of the day. Perhaps these are right, although it is 
only an opinion. It is worthy of note that men like Edersheim, (see 
above) and Godet (see his commentary on Luke, Chap. 22:17) seem 
to question whether the common cup was in vogue in Jesus’ day and 
at the Passover feasts. 

At the other hand we believe that it should be granted that the 
introduction of individual cups at the Lord’s Table does not concern 
the essence of the Sacrament. We do lose a bit of symbolism but we 
lose nothing regarding the essence of the Lord’s Table. And the 
symbolism which we lose is very likely only incidental. Let it also 
be remembered that over against the loss of symbolism which we 
suffer when we discard the common cup, we should note that which 
we gain by using the individual cups. In this day of widespread and 
more thorough knowledge concerning disease germs, of individual 
drinking cups in the home, of individual paper cups and drinking 
fountains in public places, it is verv natural that the common cup at 
the Lord’s Table, going from mouth to mouth, constitutes a detrac- 
tion and a hindrance for at least some communicants. By using indi- 
vidual cups this source of detraction and hindrance is removed. And 
that is a gain. 

The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands use the common cup 
exclusively. The individual cup has not met with favor thus far. Yet 
the Synod of 1920 of these Churches decided that when the use of the 
common cup at health institutions, by those who have contagious 
diseases, presents the danger of communicating these diseases, then 
the Consistory concerned, after having heard the advice of the physi- 
cians, may take measures regarding the celebration of the Lord’s 
Supper which are designed to counteract the danger of infection. 
This permissive ruling of the Holland Churches indicates that the 
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands virtually agreed that the ques- 
tion of common or individual cups does not touch the real essence of 
the Sacrament. For surely these Churches would not adopt a ruling 
which would cripple the celebration of the Lord’s Supper regarding 

But we repeat, there are certainly arguments in favor of the com- 
mon cup. Sometimes Ministers seek to cleanse the common cups 
somewhat with a napkin before they are circulated a second or third 
time. This measure of sanitation is well meant, but also serves to 
draw the attention of the new communicants to the fact that the cups 
are no longer fresh. Consistories could better buy so many common 
cups, that new groups of communicants would receive a fresh cup 
and so that only a limited number would use one and the same cup. 
an essential feature. 

Another matter which is not considered to be essential is whether 
the administering office-bearer shall read from the Bible while the 


262 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


guests partake of the bread and wine or whether the congregation 
shall sing appropriately. In nearly all our Churches, as well as those 
of the Netherlands, the officiating Minister reads such passages as 
the Form suggests while the elements are being passed, and the con- 
gregation sings while the guests approach unto the table, or depart. 
The custom, still practiced a few years ago by many of our Ministers, 
to discourse on some subject while the communicants partake is fast 
becoming obsolete. Rightly so, we deem. These discourses often dis- 
tracted the attention of the communicants from the silent language 
of the symbols, and perhaps even hindered some in their quiet medi- 
tations. Some Ministers preserve a reverential silence while the bread 
is passed and only break this silence with the reading of God’s own 
Word as the cup is passed. 

2. Things to be observed and things to be avoided. 

The present article provides that “every Church shall administer 
the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive 
to edification.” But a proviso or condition is added, the first part of 
which reads as follows: “provided, however, that the outward cere- 
monies as prescribed in God's Word be not changed and all supersti- 
tion avoided . . . 

The Wezelian Convention ruled that the breaking of the bread 
should be considered to be a necessary element in the administration 
of the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch as Christ clearly included this fea- 
ture in the institution of the Sacrament. 

For generations back the Reformed Churches have been in the 
habit of cutting the bread to be used into long strips, which strips 
are to be broken into small fragments in the presence and sight of 
the communicants. In some of our Churches only a small part of the 
bread is broken at the time of the actual service. This is doubtlessly 
done to save time. We cannot approve of this new usage. The break- 
ing of the bread has definite symbolic significance. It points to the 
breaking of Christ’s body for us, and was by Him included in the 
ceremony. It is better to abbreviate the sermon so that there will be 
sufficient time for the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper, than 
to lengthen the sermon to almost normal duration at the expense of 
the Sacrament. Let us by all means so arrange the communion serv- 
ice and the program of the day that ample time will be found for 
the celebration of Holy Communion. The commemorative ordinance 
of the Lord’s Supper should be a very meaningful and solemn event 
in the experience of believers. At the Communion Table if anywhere 
we should take our time and avoid rushing and crowding. 

Inasmuch as Christ used Passover bread, some have contended that 
we should use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Table. The Roman 
Church does. The Reformed Churches from the days of the Reforma- 
tion have advocated the use of ordinary bread.* In some Churches 
at the beginning the unleavened wafers of the Roman Church were 
used, but it was only a question of time before these were everywhere 
supplanted by regular bread. 

The wine which is to be used is real wine, inasmuch as Christ used 
wine and not merely grape juice. Without good reasons we should not 
introduce substitutes for the elements used by Christ. Not that our 
Reformed fathers were fanatic on this score. They allowed substitutes 
if ordinary bread and wine were not to be gotten. So, for instance, 
rice-bread was permitted if need required, and water was even substi- 


• Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkrecht, IV, 1934, p. 415. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


263 


tuted for wine if the latter could not be secured, or if certain com- 
municants were ordered not to use any wine by a physician. 

Should teetotalers be permitted grape juice or water for wine? No, 
Christ used wine and unless necessity compels us we should use the 
element used by Christ. 

Those in charge should provide enough bread for the Lord’s Table so 
that each communicant may receive a fragment not overly small. 
And when individual cups are used some way should be found which 
permits the Minister to pour the wine in the sight of the communi- 
cants. 

3. The /Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper to be read. 

In our Forms our Churches have a clear, Biblical expression re- 
garding the ceremonies and Sacraments. To avoid unbiblical con- 
ceptions it is required that these be constantly read as they are. We 
may thank God for the wealth which is ours through our various 
Forms. Without these Forms constantly read in the Churches it would 
be much harder to maintain the correct conceptions regarding the 
offices in the Church, its Sacraments, etc. 

In some of our Churches the first part of the Form for the Lord’s 
Supper has been read on the Sunday previous to the celebration of 
Holy Communion, and the concluding half just before the celebration. 
This is not according to Article 62. It says very clearly, “at the con- 
clusion of the sermon and the usual prayers, the Form for the Ad- 
ministration of the Lord’s Supper, . . . shall be read.” The Form is 
not meant to be split in two. It constitutes a unit. The arguments 
in favor of the usage alluded to are not of sufficient weight. And 
the practice does not seem to give very good satisfaction where it has 
been tried. 

When the Lord’s Supper is served at two distinct services on Com- 
munion Sunday, say morning and afternoon or morning and evening, 
the Form should be read at both services. If this is not done, some 
communicants may constantly partake of the Lord’s Supper without 
hearing the Form. This is not as it should be. All communicants 
need to hear its rich and meaningful content before approaching to 
the Lord’s Table. 

The formula which the officiating Minister should use before passing 
the bread and wine is not definitely prescribed by Holy Writ. We 
have it recorded in varying words. (Cf. Matt. 26:26:28; Mark 14:22- 
24; Luke 22:19,20; I Cor. 11:23-25.) The early Reformation Churches 
in Holland used either of two formulae, that of Datheen or that of 
a Lasco. The latter was Minister to the Dutch refugee Church in 
London. He used the following formulae : “The bread which we break 
is a communion of the body of Christ. Take, eat, remember, and be- 
lieve that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was broken unto a com- 
plete remission of all our sins.” And: “The cup of blessing which we 
bless is a communion of the blood of Christ. Take, drink ye all of it, 
remember, and believe that the precious blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ was shed unto a complete remission of all our sins.” The first 
parts of these formulae are based upon the wording of I Cor. 1:16. 
The additional words are explanatory exhortations. 

Datheen in his Liturgy used only the first parts of these formulae, 
the words namely as they are found almost literally in I Cor. 16:10. 
As remarked above, both of these formulations were in use in the 
early Reformed Churches. However, the formulation of a Lasco was 
officially approved by the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, inasmuch as this 
Synod adopted the liturgy as published by Schilders in 1611, and 


264 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


this edition of the liturgy uses the fuller formula of a Lasco and 
not that of Datheen. Consequently, our Churches today also follow 
the & Lasco formulation. (Cf. Form for the Lord’s Supper.) This 
formulation is indeed simple, clear and yet beautiful. We may appre- 
ciate the fact that its use has again become general both in the Neth- 
erlands and with us. 


ARTICLE LXIII. 

The Lord’s Supper shall be administered at least every two 
or three months. 

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING THE LORD’S SUPPER 

In the consideration of this article we shall first consider its specific 
contents and then append a few words regarding the preparatory and 
applicatory sermons. 

1. Frequency of administering the Lord’s Supper. 

Some contend that in the early apostolic Church, the Lord’s Supper 
was celebrated every day or at least every day of rest. This is also 
Jansen’s position.* The contention is based on Acts 2:46; 20:7. We 
do not believe that these passages prove this contention. Calvin him- 
self, though he favored a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper 
according to his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book IV, Chap. 
XVII, 44), did not believe that the texts noted could be used to prove 
that the Apostolic Church celebrated Communion every day or every 
week. (Cf. Calvin’s Commentary on Acts.) 

The Synod of Dort, 1574, held that the observation should take 
place every two months. Following Synods endorsed this position. 
But the Synod of Dort, 1578, added that the “Kruiskerken,” Churches 
beneath the cross of persecution, which often had to meet secretly, 
should celebrate the Lord’s Supper whenever it was convenient. This 
was, of course, only a temporary ruling. As soon as persecution 
ceased the general rule went into effect. The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 
1586, decided that if circumstances were favorable the Churches 
should also celebrate the Lord’s Supper on Easter Sunday, the day 
of Pentecost and on Christmas. Until the year 1905 the Church Order 
provided: “The Lord’s Supper shall be observed, as much as possible, 
once every two months. It will also tend to edification to have it on 
Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas, where the conditions of the 
Churches permit such.” 

The Netherlands Churches altered this reading in 1905, and our 
Synod of 1914 adopted this new redaction, so that Article 63 now 
simply reads: “The Lord’s Supper shall be administered at least 
every two or three months.” 

In the Roman Church the people were used to frequent masses. 
According to Rome the Sacraments are vehicles of grace, in and by 
themselves. We should therefore not be surprised that frequent ob- 
servations of Holy Communion were expected by the people, and that 
even leaders as Calvin, at first at least, advocated weekly Communion 
Services. 


• cf. Jansen: Korte Verklaiing, etc., 1923, p. 282. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


265 


In our Christian Reformed Churches, as is the case in the Reformed 
Churches of Holland, the Lord's Supper is celebrated four times a 
year, or every three months. In our opinion this is a well-timed ar- 
rangement. To celebrate the Lord’s Supper very frequently might 
detract somewhat from its sacredness and effectiveness. To celebrate 
it less frequently, say once or twice a year, would rob the Churches 
needlessly of a much needed blessing. 

2. Preparatory and applicatory sermons. 

The Church Order is silent regarding the preparatory and applica- 
tory services. At the Wezelian Convention, however, it was already 
stipulated that the Lord’s Supper should be announced two weeks be- 
fore the celebration, in order that the members might prepare them- 
selves aright, and in order that the Elders might call on the com- 
municants living in their respective districts or wards. The Synod 
of Dort ruled that the preparatory sermon should deal with matters 
such as follow: Conversion, self-examination, reconciliation with God 
and one’s neighbors, and kindred subjects. Furthermore, this Synod 
held that just previous to the celebration the advantages and signifi- 
cance of the Lord’s Supper should be explained. Since the Synod of 
’s Gravenhage, 1586, these stipulations have been left out of the 
Church Order, for the sake of brevity perhaps. But the preaching 
of a preparatory sermon is nevertheless a fixed custom in our 
Churches. 

In regard to the post-communion applicatory sermon no specific 
stipulations were ever incorporated into the Church Order. 

Whether a Minister would preach on the Lord’s Day division in 
order, or on a selected passage of God's Word appropriate to the 
occasion, was left to the discretion of each Consistory. More than one 
Synod ruled in this vein. Many Churches and Ministers desired to 
preach through the whole catechism once a year, according to its 52 
Lord’s Day divisions. A special applicatory sermon four times a year 
interferred with this schedule. Many Ministers adapted the Lord's 
Day material to the occasion, however. Others preferred to preach a 
regular applicatory sermon. As stated above, the matter was left to 
the wisdom of each Church. 

Our Synod of 1912 decided that the celebration of the Lord's Supper 
must always be preceded by a preparatory sermon and followed by 
an applicatory sermon. (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1912, Art. 72,9. See also 
our directory for Church Visitation.) 


ARTICLE LX IV. 

The administration of the Lords Supper shall take place only 
where there is supervision of Elders, according to the ecclesias- 
tical order and in a public gathering of the Congregation. 

CHURCH ORGANIZATION REQUIRED FOR THE ADMINISTRA- 
TION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER 

In the consideration of this article we first devote some attention 
to the original reading and content of Article 64, and then to the 
ruling as it now reads. 


266 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


1. The original reading of Article 64 and its significance. 

Originally the present article read as follows: “Inasmuch as the 
Evening-Prayers are found to be very fruitful in many places, each 
Church in maintaining these will conduct them as is most edifying. 
When there is a desire to discontinue them, this shall not be done 
without the judgment of Classis.” 

The Evening-Prayers were daily gatherings of the congregation in 
the church building for Prayer. They might be called vesper prayer 
meetings, held daily during the latter part of the afternoon, toward 
evening. During the 16th century they were quite common in Re- 
formed Churches in the Netherlands. The Roman Church observed 
these Evening Prayers, and the Reformation did not set them aside 
immediately. He who was in charge of the meeting would explain a 
passage from the Bible and then lead in prayer. 

Eventually objections were raised against the maintenance of these 
daily services in the Churches. Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled that the 
Evening-Prayers should not be introduced in Churches which until 
then had not observed these daily gatherings; and in places in which 
they were in use, they should be discontinued as soon as possible, and 
that for three specific reasons: 1. In order that the regular Sunday 
services might be attended more diligently; 2. In order that family 
worship might be maintained more diligently; 3. In order that the 
common prayers held on days of fasting might be used more dili- 
gently and zealously. 

Seemingly the people in many places relied on these vesper services 
for their daily devotions to such an extent that it was difficult to 
discontinue the practice. At least the Synod of Middelburg, 1581, 
ruled that Evening-Prayers should not be introduced in places where 
they were not observed, but that they should be discontinued in 
Churches which maintained these daily meetings, without the advice 
of Classis. These daily vesper services, inherited from the Roman 
Church, did not disappear from the domain of the Reformation 
Churches of Holland until the 17th century. The fact that it was im- 
possible to gather the whole Church together for prayer daily, aside 
from other considerations, made their discontinuance advisable. 

During late years many Protestants in our own land have urged 
that our church buildings should be open at all times for quiet medi- 
tation and prayer. This idea has found many advocates, especially in 
our larger cities with their constant rush and restlessness. In itself 
this new practice is harmless, although it may strengthen the tendency 
to regard our Churches as places of superior holiness. It is to be 
understood that the sacred, consecrated atmosphere of our Church 
auditoriums appeals to sensitive souls in this age of rush and sin 
and materialism. “Spiritual retreats” are apt to promote prayer and 
devotion. But we do believe that it is far better to stress individual 
devotion to God in one’s own home and the promotion and improve- 
ment of family worship. Furthermore, let us stress consecrated, 
consistent Christian living in the midst of the world and upon its 
busy marts. And let us continue to stress loyal attendance of the 
whole congregation, as far as possible, at the regular Sabbath serv- 
ices. 

As all will realize, Article 64 as it read originally, was thoroughly 
out of date when the Netherland Churches adopted a new redaction 
of the Church Order in 1905. These Churches therefore substituted 
the present 64th article. We copied their reading in 1914, and conse- 
quently Article 64 now reads as it does. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


267 


2. Why the Lord’s Supper is to be administered only where super- 
vision is exercised. 

Article 64 provides that the Lord’s Supper shall be administered 
only there where there is supervision of Elders. In general this means 
that believers must first be organized into a Church before Holy 
Communion can be celebrated. This has been the position of our 
Churches ever since the Reformation. In certain localities the number 
of believers breaking with the Roman Church and joining the Refor- 
mation movement was so small initially that Elders and Deacons 
could not be appointed. This meant that regular organization was as 
yet impossible, and that supervision and discipline could not be exer- 
cised. Regarding such places Calvin judged, so Jansen informs us,* 
that the services should be limited to the reading and explaining of 
God’s Word. The Sacrament should not be administered there inas- 
much as a definite Church organization was lacking, and supervision 
and discipline could not be exercised. The Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled 
in harmony with this opinion of Calvin. Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, 
provided that in places where the number of believers was too small 
for regular organization, provisional, temporary Elders and Deacons 
should be designated, before the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, in 
order that supervision and control might not be lacking. In harmony 
with these sentiments and decisions the present 64th article was 
written into the Church Order. 

There are indeed good reasons for this ruling. Christ dispenses the 
Sacraments as signs and seals of the forgiveness of sin through His 
Church, duly organized, and through the office-bearers appointed and 
charged for this work. Unworthy participation is against His Will 
and Word. The office-bearers bear responsibility regarding this mat- 
ter. The Lord’s Supper should not be celebrated where control and 
discipline is not exercised. 

This does not mean that the Lord’s Supper can never be adminis- 
tered in a place where the Church has not yet been organized. Small 
groups of believers should be incorporated into neighboring Churches 
as “branches” of these neighboring Churches. From time to time the 
Consistories of such Churches can administer the Sacraments to such 
groups. If at all possible one or more Elders or Deacons should be 
chosen from among the members of such distant groups who are in 
position to exercise supervision and who meet with the Consistory of 
the neighboring Church regularly if possible, or, upon special request 
of the Consistory, if the distance be too great for regular attendance. 
Every Lord’s Day the group should meet for worship. If no office- 
bearers can be appointed from among the unorganized group of be- 
lievers, then one or two Elders should, if possible, accompany the 
Minister when he goes to the distant group to administer the Sacra- 
ments. However, if the Sacraments are administered upon decision 
of the Consistory, the Minister may conduct the service without the 
presence of any Elders. When circumstances permit the presence of 
one or more Elders then their attendance is certainly desirable to as- 
sist the Minister and to help supervise the whole service. 

The same rule holds for groups of members of our Churches con- 
fined in our institutions or hospitals and not well able to attend the 
regular gatherings of the local congregation; for example, members 
of our Churches who are patients at Bethesda Sanatorium at Denver. 

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Leeu- 
warden, 1920, Art. 25, decided regarding the administration of the 


* Jansen: Korte ■V’erklaring', etc., 1923, p. 286. 


268 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Lord’s Supper in institutions located within the domain of one of 
their Churches to permit such a Church to administer the Lord’s 
Supper to members of the Reformed Churches who are patients at 
such institutions or who belong to their personnel and who cannot 
very well attend the meeting of the congregation. The Consistory 
must be represented at such services. Members of Churches, other 
than the Reformed Churches, may be admitted to these special com- 
munion services provided they cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper 
in their own Churches. Such non-member guests must request the 
privilege of participating from the Consistory in charge in due time, 
and the Consistory must be assured that such guests are admitted to 
the Lord’s Table in their own Churches and that they agree with the 
Reformed Churches as to the fundamentals of the Christian religion, 
that they are without reproach in their conduct, and that they submit 
themselves to the supervision of the Consistory concerned as long as 
they partake of the Lord’s Supper as non-member guests. 

The Synod of Middelburg, 1933, Article 131, decided that it was 
undesirable to introduce communion for the sick in their homes. Our 
own Churches, Synod 1914, Article 19, deemed that the administration 
of the Lord’s Supper to those who have not been able to come to 
Church for years because of sickness, was permissible, provided that 
the congregation be represented. 

If ever a Consistory should receive a request for the privilege of 
celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the home of sick or handicapped and 
bound to his home for years, how should this Consistory proceed? 
Let announcement be made to the Church when such a special com- 
munion service is to take place and let those living nearest the resi- 
dence of the sick party be invited to be present. Let the Consistory 
make sure that at least part of its number can and will be present. 


ARTICLE LXV. 

Fimeral sermons or funeral services shall not be introduced. 

FUNERAL SERMONS AND SERVICES 

1. The nature of funeral sermons and services referred to 
in this article. 

The Church of Rome had ecclesiastical burials, funeral services 
conducted by the Church in an official way. For those who died in 
good standing with the Church, a Church service would be held. The 
priest would speak over the body of the deceased; he would offer a 
prayer in behalf of the dead person, the parishioners would sing a 
farewell hymn, etc. The tolling or ringing of the church bell was 
part of the ceremony. According to Jansen it served a two-fold pur- 
pose in the Roman conception of things: It drove away the evil spirits; 
it reminded people that they should pray for the dead person. 

It stands to reason that the Reformed Churches disapproved of all 
this. Official, ecclesiastical burials are unnecessary and uncalled for. 
The Church as such has no functions to fulfill at a funeral. The 
Church labors with and for the living. The living God has given His 
Church a very definite charge, not at all for the dead. In the first 
place because one’s death decides one’s eternal state. They who die 
in the Lord need no further labors by the Church; they are not in 
purgatory, but in heaven. And those who have died out of the Lord 
are forever lost, and beyond the reach of the Church. In the second 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


269 


place the Church has no charge of God regarding the burial of the 
dead because this is a matter which can well be taken care of by 
the relatives and friends of the deceased, and belongs to their domain 
and responsibility. 

Moreover, the Reformed Churches frowned on Church funerals and 
sermons because of all the abuses that went with these burials. A 
whole body of superstitious notions and practices had sprung up 
around these Roman funerals and many people were attached to 
these customs, relying on them rather than on the only saving grace 
of God in Christ. 

Now to be sure, no Reformed Church taking official charge of a 
burial during the first days of the Reformation attached unbiblical 
value to the address or sermon, and to the prayers offered at a fu- 
neral. Nor did the ringing of the church bells have the pagan, super- 
stitious significance which it did have for the Church of Rome. But 
the people in many instances did attach superstitious value to these 
activities. Thus it is to be understood that one of the first Synods, 
Dort, 1574, ruled that funeral sermons should be discontinued as soon 
as possible, and that localities which had not yet introduced them 
should not do so, in order to avoid the danger of superstition. Synod 
of Dort, 1578, judged likewise, and added that in places where these 
funeral sermons could not be discontinued as yet they should not be 
regular sermons but merely extemporaneous words of admonition. 
This Synod did not even favor prayer at these funeral “services”, 
doubtless because many people would attach superstitious value to 
such prayers in behalf of the dead person. The Synod of Middelburg, 
1581, decided that funeral sermons should not be introduced in places 
where such had not as yet been done, and that they should be discon- 
tinued in the most suitable way in those places in which they had 
already been introduced. This decision became Article 65 of the old 
Church Order. Thus the ruling stood until 1905, when the Holland 
Churches accepted the simple reading as we also adopted it in 1914: 
“Funeral sermons and funeral services shall not be introduced.” 

2. Our present customs apDraised. 

Our Churches certainly do not maintain Church funerals. The 
solemnities which we ordinarily observe regarding the burial of our 
dead are not Church funerals in the technical sense. They do not 
violate the letter of Article 65, and are not ecclesiastical burials 
(kerkelyke begrafenissen). The Consistories are not in charge of 
these funerals but the relatives are. If our homes were large enough, 
or if funeral homes were large enough we would not, and should not 
resort to the Church building at all. At our funerals, moreover, the 
Minister does not preach a sermon, he does not administer the Word 
of God officially and to the congregation of God. He only addresses 
the mourning relatives and their friends appropriately. As we bury 
our dead, we pause for reflection, instruction, and comfort. The Min- 
ister of the deceased is usually asked to speak with these needs in 
mind. Many Ministers give their remarks the form of a sermon. 
This should not be done and this should not be expected. Funeral 
sermons and funeral services shall not be introduced, so the Church 
Order stipulates. 

This latter remark leads us to say that Article 65 is not an obso- 
lete, antiquated ruling. It is true that the superstitious customs and 
notions of Rome are hardly known to us anymore. But the article 
constantly and officially commits our Churches against ecclesiastical 
burials and their evils. Furthermore, Article 65 should be a constant 
warning to us against usages and dangers which might easily creep 


270 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


into our circles regarding the burial of our dead. And let it not be 
overlooked that though we have no funeral services officially, yet un- 
officially we have introduced something of the kind. Confer what was 
said regarding the funeral addresses by many Ministers. They are 
as to form very often actually “sermons.” Now this surely is not 
serious, but neither is it advisable and practical. It also happens 
that people insist on a “church funeral,” when their home can ade- 
quately accommodate the relatives and friends. Why? Is there per- 
haps a lingering bit of superstition in this demand? 

It should be noted that although we have no funeral services in 
the real and official sense of the word, that yet, inasmuch as our 
church buildings are often used for funeral addresses, the Consistories 
do have a voice in matters. That is to say, when our Churches permit 
their buildings to be used for “funeral services” 1 they have a right 
to stipulate certain conditions if they so desire. Our Consistories 
need not permit innovations which they might deem out of place. 
When the use of our church auditoriums is requested for funeral ad- 
dresses, we have a right to grant the request upon condition, for in- 
stance, that unconverted, modernistic singers shall not take part in 
the “service,” or that excessive floral displays be omitted, etc. A 
wreath, or a spray or two of flowers on the casket does not offend. 
But should we carry large numbers of floral offerings into our church 
buildings when used for funeral addresses? Why? 

Doubtless it would be better if we would cease using the expression 
“funeral sermons” when referring to our funeral addresses. Likewise 
it would be better if we would speak of burials rather than of “fu- 
neral services” inasmuch as we have neither funeral sermons nor 
funeral services in the ordinary sense of these expressions. Many 
denominations have both funeral services and funeral sermons in the 
real sense of the word. So do the lodges of our land. 

Our Synod of 1888 held that when our church buildings are used 
for burials it is a matter of indifference whether or not the corpse 
is brought into the building. Each Consistory can decide this matter 
as it sees fit. 

The tolling of the church bell at burials is entirely unobjectionable 
for our day and age. It is a solemn usage reminding us of the reality 
and solemnity of death. 

What should be our attitude toward cremation ? The Bible does not 
forbid the burning of dead bodies, but honorable burial was the rule 
in both Old Testament and New Testament times. The patriarchs 
were buried. God Himself buried Moses. Lazarus rested in a grave. 
Our Lord Himself underwent burial, not burning. In the ancient 
apostolic Church burial was the common custom. On the other hand, 
many pagan peoples burned the bodies of their dead. And the only 
instances in which burning is prescribed by God for Israel is in the 
case of great sinners, as a special condemnation of such sinners on 
God’s part. (Cf. Lev. 20:14; 21:9; Joshua 7:15.) Many people today 
favor cremation from materialistic unbelieving considerations. Death 
to these ends all. Christian burial, at the other hand, is expressive of 
the hope and expectation of the resurrection. The body is sown in 
corruption, as a seed is sown, but it will be raised incorruptible. 
(I Cor. 15.) 


Through circumstances wholly beyond the control of the publishers and 
of the authors, the publication of this book has been delayed for several 
months. In the mean time Synod of 1940 has revised Article 65, so that it 
now reads: Funerals are not ecclesiastical, but family affairs, and. should 
be conducted accordingly. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


271 


ARTICLE LX VI. 

In time of war , pestilence, national calamities, and other great 
afflictions, the pressure of which is felt throughout the 
Churches, it is fitting that the Classes proclaim a Day of Prayer. 

DAYS OF PRAYER 
1. Former rulings and usages. 

Originally Article 66 read as follows: “In times of war, pestilence, 
depression, persecution of Churches, and other general calamities, the 
Ministers of the Churches shall request the government that upon its 
authority and order public fast and prayer days be appointed and 
hallowed.” 

As is well known, the Roman Church made much of days of fasting 
and prayer. There was much externalism in the observance of these 
days in the Roman Church. This the Reformation Churches con- 
demned. But they saw much good in special days of fasting and 
prayer. They believed that when circumstances and times were trying 
believers should humble themselves before God and pray for relief. 
The Churches therefore maintained days of fasting and prayer. But 
by reason of persecution united action was difficult at first. The in- 
dividual Churches would hold their own days of fasting and prayer 
whenever the Consistories felt that such days should be observed. 
Jansen informs us that at first these days would be observed when a 
new Minister had to be called, but later the usage was applied to 
emergency conditions as referred to above.* This same authority 
informs us also that when a fast and prayer day was proclaimed the 
congregation would come to the church upon the week-day appointed 
and would sometimes remain in church all day at the same time re- 
fraining from eating and drinking. Two sermons would be preached 
and between the sermons passages from the Bible would be read to 
the gathering. 

It will be noted that the Churches initiated the observances of 
these days apart from the government. But when the Reformation 
had gained considerable head-way, and when the government was 
sympathetic toward the Reformed Churches, the government would 
be requested to proclaim these days of fasting and prayer. Conse- 
quently the original 65th article reads as it does. 

It therefore appears that our Church Order originally provided for 
days of fasting and prayer, and not merely for days of prayer as it 
does now. 

According to the “Christelyke Encyclopaedic,” the 16th century 
Reformation broke with the meritorious fasts of the Roman Churches 
and returned to Scriptural fasting, which aims to repress and curb 
the flesh and constitutes a spiritual exercise. Calvin especially, so 
this same source tells us, warned against the Roman practice of 
fasting. Fasting should be practiced to repress the flesh and to pre- 
pare for prayer and humiliation before God. But during the 17th and 
18th centuries the custom of fasting fell completely into disuse. It 
was revived for a brief period during the days of the Secession of 
1834 and following years, because of persecutions experienced, but 
soon fell into disuse once more.** 

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands 1905 re- 


• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 289. 

** Christelyk Encyclopaedic : Article “Vasten”. 


272 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


vised Article 66 and among other changes left the provision for fast- 
ing out. In 1914 our Synod did likewise. 

Whether the discontinuance of fasting in our circles can be defended 
from every aspect is a question which is certainly open for debate, 
but which we are not now considering. But it is a question worthy 
of serious consideration. 

2. Conditions which warrant special Days of Prayer. 

We have our annual Day of Prayer for Crops. This Day of Prayer 
is observed every second Wednesday in the month of March. But be- 
sides this regular Day of Prayer the present article provides for spe- 
cial Days of Prayer. In days of great affliction such as brought 
about by war, pestilence, and other national calamities, it is fitting, 
Article 66 declares, that Days of Prayer be proclaimed. The article 
refers to afflictions, “the presence of which is felt throughout the 
Churches/' This does not refer to all the Churches of our denomina- 
tion, scattered as they are from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but rather 
to the Churches of certain Classes. For the Churches of one sector 
may be visited by calamities which are not felt at all by Churches of 
another region. Yet this fact should not keep the Churches affected 
from holding special prayer services. Moreover the article authorizes 
the Classes to proclaim these special Days of Prayer. Doubtless Synod 
of 1914 adopted this reading with a purpose. For thus each group of 
Churches can act for itself. This method of procedure is altogether 
proper for a denomination the Churches of which are widely scattered 
over a large territory. This does not mean that Synod cannot pre- 
scribe a general Day of Prayer for all the Churches in case of calami- 
ties which are general. Nor does the article mean to say that indi- 
vidual Churches may not set aside special Days of Prayer when they 
see fit to do so. 

Hie conclusion of the present article as maintained by us differs 
somewhat from the conclusion of the Holland Churches. We say: 
“In time of war, . . . , it is fitting that the Classes proclaim a Day 
of Prayer/' The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands say, “In time 
of war, . . . , a Day of Prayer shall be appointed by the Classis ap- 
pointed for this purpose by the last general Synod." In Holland 
therefore a Classis is designated by each general Synod, which is 
charged to appoint special Days of Prayer for all the Churches of 
the denomination whenever this Classis may deem such a step advis- 
able. Synod of 's Gravenhage, 1914, favored holding such special Days 
of Prayer on Sabbath days rather than on week days. But this ques- 
tion was left to the Classis charged with this matter. We, by our 
reading of Article 66, have made the matter of appointing special 
Days of Prayer a classical matter. Doubtless this was done because 
our Churches cover a wide extent of territory, and consequently our 
Classes often represent various needs. 

It is worthy of note, that the Churches of Holland delegate this 
matter, not to a committee as we would be apt to do, but to a Classis. 
This is in harmony with the principle that Church governmental mat- 
ters which can be acted upon directly through the governing bodies 
themselves should not be delegated to committees. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


273 


ARTICLE LXVII. 

The Churdhes shall observe , in addition to the Sunday, also 
Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, the 
Day of Prayer, the National Thanksgiving Day, and Old and 
New Year’s Day. 

SPECIAL DAYS TO BE OBSERVED 

1. The original position of the Reformed Churches regarding 
special days. 

During the early days of the Reformation some Reformed localities 
observed only Sunday. All special days sanctioned and revered by 
Rome were set aside. Zwingli and Calvin both encouraged the re- 
jection of all ecclesiastical festive days. In Geneva all special days 
were discontinued as soon as the Reformation took a firm hold in 
that city. Already before the arrival of Calvin in Geneva this had 
been accomplished under the leadership of Farel and Viret. But Cal- 
vin agreed heartily. And Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, shared 
these same convictions, he being a disciple of Calvin in Geneva. Con- 
sequently the Scottish Churches also banned the Roman sacred days. 

These eminent Reformers took this stand for the following reasons: 
The festival days are not ordained of God but are a human invention; 
they minimize Sunday, the God-ordained weekly day of rest; they 
lead to paganistic celebrations and promote licentiousness.* In view 
of present day celebrations of days as Christmas and Easter by the 
general public and many believers it must be said that the conten- 
tions of the Reformers as to this last point were certainly correct. 
Present day celebration of these days is more pagan than Christian. 
Neither can it be denied that the observance of these days is but an 
invention of man, and that many people hold these festivals in higher 
esteem than Sunday. 

Considering the position of the Reformers, we are not surprised 
that the Synod of Dort, 1574, held that the weekly Sabbath alone 
should be observed, and that the observance of all other days should 
be discouraged. This same Synod, however, also decided that the Min- 
isters should preach about the birth of Christ on the Sunday preced- 
ing Christmas day, and Ministers were also permitted to preach on 
the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday and on the outpourinsr of 
the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday.** The “tweede feestdagen,” i.e., sec- 
ond festival days, still observed in Holland on December 26 and on 
the days following Easter and Pentecost, were set aside and ignored 
completely by this Synod. 

2. Why the provisions of this article were included in the 
Church Order 

Consulting the present article we find that it prescribes the obser- 
vation of several special or festival days. How is this to be explained ? 
The government of Holland was loath to set all the Christian festivals 
aside inasmuch as many of the people delighted in these days for the 
sake of their pleasures and because the government officials and em- 
ployees hated to part with a number of holidays which afforded them 
rest and recreation. Rather than see these days given over to the 
danger of abuse and frivolity, the Churches accommodated themselves 


• Bouwman: Ger. Kerlcredit, Vol. II, 1934, p. 486. 

•• Rutgers, Acta der Nat. Syn., p. 142, quoted by Bouwman, Ger. 
Kerkrecht, Vol. IL 1934. p. 487. 


274 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


to circumstances and began to celebrate these days after a fashion. 
Thus the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 75, declared in substance that 
it would be desirable to celebrate Sunday only according to God’s 
ordinance. But, inasmuch as Christmas Day and the day following 
upon Christmas, as well as the days following upon Easter and Pente- 
cost and in some places also New Year’s Day, and Ascension Day 
were legal holidays by authority of the governments, the Ministers 
should preach appropriately on these days in order to turn a fruitless 
and harmful idleness (lediggang) into a holy and profitable exercise. 
Furthermore, Ministers of cities which observed other festivals by 
authority of local governments, should hold services on these days 
also. At the same time this Synod urged that the Churches should 
work toward the setting aside of all festive-days, except Christmas, 
Easter, and Pentecost.* 

Subsequent Synods made like decisions and concessions. The great 
Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted the following reading of Article 67: 
“The Churches shall keep, besides Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and 
Pentecost, with the days following upon these days. And whereas 
most cities and provinces of the Netherlands also keep the day of 
(Christ’s) Circumcision, and the Ascension of Christ, the Ministers 
shall in all places in which such is not yet being done, advocate the 
matter (zullen arbeiden) so that these localities may conform them- 
selves to the others.” 

We note that the early Reformed Synods yielded increasingly to 
pressure from without regarding the observation of “Christian festi- 
vals.” The government of the Netherlands made something like legal 
holidays out of these festivals, and so the Churches, although not 
favoring the observation of these days, for practical reasons ruled 
as they did. To prevent people from spending these days in worldi- 
ness they introduced Church services for these festive occasions. 

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 1905, 
adopted the following redaction of Article 67: “The congregations 
shall keep, besides Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and As- 
cension Day. The observation of the second festival days is left to 
the freedom of the Churches.” 

It will be noted that our redaction of 1914 includes several more 
special days, namely, Good Friday, the Day of Prayer (for Crops, 
second Wednesday in March) the National Thanksgiving Day, and 
Old and New Year’s Day. These days had all received a semi-official 
standing in our Churches. There is much to be said for their obser- 
vation. And so it was only logical that we should include them in 
Article 67. 

Regarding Good Friday, the Holland Churches have not included it 
with its festive days mentioned in Article 67. This was seemingly 
done because Good Friday is celebrated superstitiously by the various 
Churches. It is often elevated above Sunday, especially by the Roman 
Church. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated on Good Friday instead of 
on the Lord’s Day as was done by the Apostolic Churches. Hence 
the Reformed Churches hesitated to mention the day officially, al- 
though many of these Churches hold an evening service on Good 
Friday. We keep the day officially. It is indeed a very meaningful 
day on the Christian Church calendar. But we should also guard our- 
selves against an unwholesome, unscriptural overemphasis here. We 
should guard against Roman and Lutheran practices which border on 


* Acta, Synode Dordrecht, 1578, Act. 75. Kerkelyk Handboekje, G. Ph. 
Zalsman, Kampen, 1882. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


275 


things superstitious. And let us not overestimate celebrations which 
are often superficial and external by men and women who ordinarily 
manifest very little knowledge of and appreciation for the atoning 
death of our Lord and Savior. We would appreciate all Scriptural 
and sincere commemoration of Christ’s death and suffering. But we 
would also note that leading modernists are often foremost in the 
celebration of Good Friday, whereas modernists deny the heart and 
core of Christ’s suffering and death. 

Our Churches, and also some of us as individuals, have at various 
times petitioned our government to proclaim a Day of Prayer annual- 
ly. Thus far this has not brought results. Nevertheless, we as 
Churches observe the day. However, it is to be regretted that we 
do not keep a day of prayer to invoke God’s blessings on our agricul- 
tural endeavors. At most we keep an hour of prayer. The day of 
prayer has indeed shrunk to small proportions. 

It is doubtless advisable that we continue to follow the method of 
introducing our petitional prayers and our prayers of thanksgiving 
at these special services by an appropriate sermon and that the Min- 
ister then leads the Church in prayer. We do not believe that the 
introduction of prayer meeting methods for these special services 
would be an advancement. Needless to say, as individuals, as families 
and as groups of believers, we should not neglect prayer and praise 
for these special needs on these special days. 

Watch hour services for New Year’s eve and sunrise services on 
Easter morning are indeed harmless in themselves, although they 
may foster reliance on external things. It is a fact well known to 
Church historians that as spiritual life begins to wane, formalistic 
and extraordinary observances begin to increase. He who serves God 
in Spirit and with devotion will have little need for the unusual, and 
for constant innovations. And not to be forgotten, the regular serv- 
ices of the Church, held at the regular hours, which all, old and 
young can attend, should never be crowded upon the background. 

3. The position of our Churches as to the weekly Lord’s Day. 

Our Churches observe first and foremost, as the present article also 
indicates, the Lord’s Day or Sunday. We believe that the Sabbath 
(Day of Rest) should be kept, not as a matter of good policy merely, 
as Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the majority of present day 
Protestants seem to hold, but by commandment of God. 

We hold that the whole decalogue, that all the Ten Commandments 
are still in force. The Ten Commandments are God’s summary of His 
universal laws. They hold for the New Testament period as well as 
for the Old Testament period. The fourth commandment is no excep- 
tion to this rule. Of course, the Israelitish, ancient cloak in which 
the fourth commandment in common with the other commandments 
is dressed is not essential to the heart of the commandment. We 
maintain that one day out of every seven, according to a definite cycle 
of days, must be set aside for service of and devotion to God. That 
is the abiding principle. And this abiding principle is not Jewish but 
universal. God hallowed the Sabbath day unto Himself even before 
sin entered the world. 

We hold that it is the Christian's privilege and duty on “the day 
of rest (to) diligently attend the Church of God, to learn in God’s 
Word, to use the Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord and to 
give Christian alms.” (Heidelberg Catechism, qu. 103.) At the same 
time we believe it to be our duty to refrain from all unnecessary 
activities which divert our attentions and which tend to make the 
day common. 


276 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted six points regarding the 
Sabbath which, translated almost verbatim, read as follows: 

1. In the fourth commandment of God’s Law there is a ceremonial 
and a moral element. 

2. The rest on the seventh day after the creation, and the strict 
observance of this day with which the Jewish people were charged 
particularly, was ceremonial. 

3. That a definite and appointed day has been set aside to the 
service of God, and that for this purpose as much rest is required as 
is necessary for the service of God and for hallowed contemplation, 
this element is moral. 

4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been set aside, Christians are 
in duty bound to hallow the Day of the Lord solemnly. 

5. This day has always been kept in the early Church since the 
time of the Apostles. 

6. This day must be so consecrated unto the service of God that 
upon it men rest from all servile labors, except those required by 
charity and present necessities, and likewise from all such recreations 
as prevent the service of God.* 

These six points were adopted by our own Synod of 1881. And ac- 
cording to our Synod of 1926 (Art. 136, pp. 191, 192) they must be 
considered doctrinal in their nature and hence binding and also in 
full accord with the fundamental principles expressed in Lord’s Day 
38 of the Catechism, to the effect that the fourth commandment also 
applies to the New Testament Church in its observance of the day 
of rest and worship. Synod also declared that these six points are an 
official interpretation of our confession and not an addition to our 
Forms of Unity. 


ARTICLE LXVIII. 

The Ministers shall on Sunday explain briefly the sum of 
Christian Doctrine comprehended in the Heidelberg Catechism 
so that as much as possible the explanation shall be anmuilly 
completed , according to the division of the Catechism itself , for 
that purpose . 

CATECHISM PREACHING 

1. The purpose and value of catechism preaching. 

The Heidelberg Catechism is a brief, practical summary of the way 
of salvation as revealed in the Bible. It covers the whole field of 
doctrine, from beginning to end, systematically. The Catechism is not 
something which the Churches have added to the Bible, but it is a 
short, systematic, practical summary of the doctrine of salvation as 
revealed in the Bible. The contents of the Catechism are gleaned 
from the Bible and are based on the Bible. Our Churches hold that 
believers should have a clear understanding of the way in which God 
saves His people. The teachings concerning man’s fall into sin, the 
degree of his sinfulness, the hopelessness of his condition in and by 
himself, the sovereignty of God’s redeeming grace in Christ, the Deity 
of Christ and its necessity, the origin, nature and purpose of the 


• Cf. Post-Acta. 164th Session, Synod 1618-19. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


277 


Church, concerning these and many other things God has something 
very definite to say in His Word. Consequently God's people should 
take close note of all that God teaches them. Let them remember 
that: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: 
that the Man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto 
every good work.” (II Tim. 3:16,17.) Now by preaching the truth 
of God constantly and systematically according to the summary of 
the Heidelberg Catechism the congregation of God receives regular 
instruction in all the fundamentals of the Christian faith as revealed 
in the Bible. It is true that apart from Catechism preaching a Min- 
ister might indoctrinate his congregation according to God’s revela- 
tions. But Catechism preaching assures us that all Ministers will 
preach the whole truth of God, and that not according to their per- 
sonal conceptions, but according to the common conception of all the 
Churches. We are safe in saying that if it were not for Catechism 
preaching, certain truths of God’s Word would be seldom touched 
upon in our sermons. All Ministers are but men, and all men are apt 
to be one-sided and forgetful. The preaching of God’s Word accord- 
ing to the summary of that Word found in the Catechism safeguards 
the Churches against the danger of partial and one-sided preaching. 
And at the same time it offers the Churches some security against 
unbiblical, erroneous presentations. Every Minister must be loyal in 
his interpretations to the Word of God as reproduced in the Catechism. 

Catechism preaching, to be sure, is doctrinal preaching. We need 
doctrinal preaching. Every believer should be a well informed Chris- 
tian. One who is not well informed as to the main teachings of Holy 
Writ cannot be a strong Christian. And especially in our day and 
age of shallow Christianity and self-conceived, self-constructed con- 
ceptions, a thorough understanding of God’s truth is very necessary. 
Besides, every doctrine of Holy Writ, rightly understood, is full of 
comfort for the believer. We need this comfort in this world of dis- 
appointments and conflicts. 

Sometimes it has been objected that Catechism preaching is the 
setting aside of the Word of God. It is claimed to be preaching of 
man’s Word. This presentation is utterly false for every Lord’s Day 
division of the Catechism is the summary of several Bible passages. 
Virtually therefore, the Minister who preaches on a certain Lord’s 
Day division of the Catechism is preaching on several passages of 
God’s Word. It may be said in this connection that Catechism ser- 
mons should be so constructed that the congregation sees very clearly 
that the truths embodied in the Catechism are indeed but reproduc- 
tions of God’s own Word. When we preach a Catechism sermon, we 
are preaching the Word of God just as well as if we preach on a 
certain text or passage taken directly from the Bible. Only, in case 
of catechism preaching, one expounds and applies the Word of God 
according to a summary of that Word adopted by all the Churches 
and agreed to by all the members of our Churches. 

2. The origin of catechism preaching. 

The custom of preaching God’s Word at one of the Sunday sendees, 
according to the summary of the Heidelberg Catechism is of old 
standing. The Holland Churches adopted the usage from Reformed 
Churches of other countries. We hear of the practice as early as 1566. 
In 1574 a question reached the Synod of Dort, asking whether it 
would not be advisable to make some good sermons on the Catechism. 
These were doubtlessly desired for the people to read and perhaps to 


278 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


serve the Ministers as guides in constructing catechism sermons. And 
in 1578 the Synod of Dort decided that after the Lord’s Supper had 
been served on Sunday afternoons the Minister should proceed to 
preach on the Catechism as usual. However, the first binding decision 
for all the Churches we find in the Church Order of the Synod of 
1586, ’s Gravenhage, Article 61. “The Ministers shall everywhere on 
Sunday, ordinarily in the afternoon sermon, explain briefly the sum- 
mary of Christian doctrine contained in the Catechism, which at this 
time has been accepted in the Netherland Churches, in such a way 
that this explanation may be finished annually, following the division 
of the Catechism itself as made for this purpose.” 

Our present reading of Article 68 is a redaction of this original. 
The only change which was made in this article by the Churches of 
Holland in 1905 was the provision that the explanation should be 
finished annually, “as much as possible” (zooveel mogelijk). Jansen 
is slightly in error when he states that the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
inserted the phrase, “which at this time has been accepted in the 
Netherland Churches” (die tegenwoordig in de Nederlandsche Kerken 
aangenomen is). This phrase was in the article from the day of its 
first adoption. (1586.) 

Our redaction of 1914 omits this phrase as being unnecessary and 
out of place in a Church Order for our Churches here in America. 
Our 1914 revision also omitted the provision that these catechism 
sermons should ordinarily be preached on Sunday afternoon. This 
matter is left to the judgment of each Church. Many of our Churches 
now have evening services instead of afternoon services, and find it 
more suitable to preach according- to the Catechism in the morning 
service, when minds are fresh and heavier material seems more in 
place. Others doubtlessly favor preaching the Catechism sermon at 
the second service no matter when it is held. Each Church is free in 
this matter. 

To make clear which Catechism is meant our redaction of 1914 
also added the word: “Heidelberg.” Moreover, we also decided that 
the Catechism should be covered in one year’s time, “as much as 
possible.” 

At first the people did not take to catechism preaching. However, 
as appears from certain decisions taken by Synods in regard to this 
matter, perhaps many refrained from attending the service at which 
the catechism was preached because they did not care to go to Church 
twice a day. The Catechism was always preached in the afternoon 
service as the original article stipulated. Many had joined the Refor- 
mation, but not sincerely. They went along with the crowd. Others 
were not as spiritually minded as they should have been. The Roman 
Church was very lax and legalistic. This spirit many maintained after 
they had officially broken with Rome. These felt that one service a 
day was enough. And they were adverse to doctrinal studies perhaps. 
Let it also be remembered that the Reformed Churches were really 
the official, state-recognized, Churches of Holland. This gave them 
special favor and protection, but also handicapped them in the exer- 
cise of discipline and it opened the doors of the Churches to many 
evils. A “volkskerk”, a Church seeking to include all the people 
within its walls, is making a mistake, for all are not God’s people, 
and it is bound to suffer for its error. 

Some of the complaints which reached the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
regarding non-attendance at Catechism preaching and its causes are 
the following: failure of Ministers to hold afternoon services at 
which the Catechism sermon could be preached; many people insisted 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


279 


on working or playing on Sunday afternoon; some Ministers had two 
or more Churches to serve and could not attend to their flocks prop- 
erly; the Remonstrants (Arminians) were opposed to Catechism 
preaching; the government failed to maintain Sunday as a day of 
rest and permitted field labor. 

Briefly stated the Synod took the following decisions to curb the 
evil and to improve the situation: 

1. It reiterated the decision of the Synod of 1586 regarding Cate- 
chism preaching. Ministers who should fail to do their duty in this 
respect would be censured. Catechism sermons should be brief and 
understandable to the common people. 

2. No Minister should neglect to maintain this service because the 
attendance is small. Though only the Minister’s own family should 
be in attendance, he should proceed. This would be a good example. 

3. The government was to be asked to forbid all unnecessary Sun- 
day labor, and especially sports, drinking parties, etc., so that people 
might learn to hallow the Sabbath day and come to Church regularly. 

4. Every Church should have its own Minister as much as possible 
and unnecessary combinations of two or more Churches should be 
severed, or else the Catechism sermons should be maintained at least 
every other Sunday afternoon. 

5. Church Visitors were charged to take close note of this matter 
regarding every Church. Negligent, unwilling Ministers had to be 
reported to Classis for censure. Confessing members who refused to 
attend the catechism sermons seemingly had to be censured also.* 

3. Dangers to be avoided. 

Catechism preaching is beyond a doubt one of our strongholds. Con- 
sequently we must guard it against any and all dangers which 
threaten its continuance or which may help to bring the custom into 
disfavor. 

Ministers should always see to it that their catechism sermons are 
really sermons. They should not be class room lectures on some theo- 
logical question, however important. A catechism sermon should be 
an exposition and application of God’s Word just as every other 
sermon. 

Furthermore Ministers should avoid abstract Catechism preaching 
which goes over the heads and beside the hearts of the congregation. 
Let our catechism sermons be vital and understandable even to the 
simplest minds. 

Again, sermons that go into great detail, so that two, three or more 
sermons are required for one Lord’s Day division should be avoided. 
Let the rule of Article 68 be observed. If our fathers, having more 
time and moving much slower than we, found it best to cover the 
Catechism in one year’s time, then in all likelihood it is best for us 
also. 

Should a text from the Bible be chosen and quoted together with 
the Lord’s Day division of the Catechism as text for the sermon ? No. 
This practice may lead some people to think that a catechism sermon 
is really not a sermon on the Word of God. This erroneous concep- 
tion should not be encouraged in the least. Furthermore, no Lord’s 
Day division of the Catechism is based on a single Bible passage. If 
a Minister desires to quote the Biblical foundation for any given 
Lord’s Day division, then he shall have to quote a good many passages. 


• Cf. H. Kaajan, De Pro- Acta der Dordsche Synode, pp. 154-167, quoted 
by Jansen, Xorte Verklarlngf, etc., 1923, p. 295-6. 


280 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


And in some instances the doctrine deduced is not found in so many 
words in any Bible passage, but is rather the legitimate conclusion 
based on certain facts clearly revealed. 

We deem that it is better, far better, for the Minister to quote and 
interpret Scripture in the body of the sermon so that the congregation 
feels instinctively that the Minister is really bringing them God’s own 
Word. 

At the beginning of the catechism sermon, as he announces his ser- 
mon, let the Minister use some statement as follows: “The Word of 
God, congregation, as I expound and apply it for you at this time, is 
summarized for us in Lord’s Day division .... of our Catechism/’ 
Then let him read the Lord’s Day division. 

We have heard of instances in which the Minister would read a 
text taken directly from the Bible, but he would omit announcing and 
reading the Lord’s Day division. This is of course all wrong. We 
suppose that this was done to satisfy some who objected to catechism 
preaching. But we gain nothing in the long run by yielding to mis- 
taken notions. Rather let us labor to remove such mistaken concep- 
tions. This cannot be done effectively and fairly by preaching camou- 
flaged catechism sermons. In such a case as this it is better to face 
the issue squarely than to dilly-dally. 

We should also be careful not to omit the catechism sermon in 
favor of a free-choice-text sermon without due cause. Some have 
permitted the Catechism to rest during the pre-Christmas season or 
perhaps during Lent. This is unnecessary and contrary to the present 
article of the Church Order. Let the exceptions which we make to 
the adopted rule be few and well founded. 

Already in 1902 our Synod found it necessary to admonish the 
Churches as follows: “With a view to dangers from without that 
threaten sound doctrine, and in consideration of the great need of, 
and the very meager interest in the regular development of dog- 
matical truths, Synod emphasizes the time-honored custom of cate- 
chism preaching, and the Classes are urged to give proper attention 
to this matter, that the regular consideration of the catechism may 
be observed.” * 


ARTICLE LX EX. 

In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David and the collec- 
tion of hymns for Church use , approved and adopted by Synod, 
shall be sung\. However , while the singing of the Psalms in 
divine worship is a requirement , the use of the approved hymns 
is left to the freedom of the Churches. 

PSALMS AND HYMNS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP 

In the consideration of this article we first of all speak briefly 
concerning its historical background. Then we shall indicate the spe- 
cific significance of the article as it now reads. Finally, the matter 
of choir singing and the use of instrumental music for congregational 
worship will be taken up. 


* A £ts P02. Art. 103 and 110, translation by Stuart and Hoeksema: 
Church Order, under Art. 68. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


281 


1. Historical background of this article. 

In the ancient Church the singing of psalms was undoubtedly com- 
mon. Psalm singing was well known to the Jews as they worshipped 
in their synagogues and so we are not surprised to find this practice 
back in the early Christian Churches. It cannot be said with certainty 
that the early Churches also used hymns in congregational worship, 
although there are many things which seem to point in this direction. 
However, Augustine tells us that in his time the North African 
Churches sang only the psalms. And the counsel of Bracatara, 563, 
decided that no hymns should be used in the Churches besides the 
psalms and hymns taken directly from the Old Testament and New 
Testament. Eventually, however, psalm singing diminished. Gregory 
the Great, bishop of Rome from 690 to 604, substituted choir singing 
for congregational singing. This move relegated the psalms still far- 
ther upon the background, as stands to reason. 

Zwingli did not approve of singing in Church services. Perhaps 
Roman ritualism and its extemalism drove him to this extreme and 
unwarranted position. We may be thankful that the other leader of 
the Reformed Churches did not share this view. In the Roman Church 
the choir sang and the congregation listened. The people did not sing. 
This met with disapproval on Calvin’s part. He restored congrega- 
tional singing and silenced the choir. He believed that all the be- 
lievers should praise God in song. A number of psalms, verified by 
Clement Marot and Beza were introduced by him. The melodies were 
written by Louis Bourgeois and Maitre Pierre at Calvin’s request. Not 
only were the children taught to sing these psalms in the schools, 
but some of the older folks also received instruction in the singing 
of psalms. 

The example of the Genevan Reformer found a ready following in 
all Reformed Churches, although the Zwinglian Churches did not in- 
troduce congregational singing until the close of the century. 

The Reformed Churches of Holland first sang the “Souterliedekens” 
of Willem van Zuylen van Nijevelt. These were versifications of the 
psalms collected and in all likelihood also written by the author. 
( Souter-salter-psalter. ) 

In 1566 the Rev. Petrus Datheen published his book of psalms. 
These psalms by Datheen became very popular. They appealed to 
the heart of the believer. This versification was modeled after the 
French edition of Marot and Beza. The Convention of Wezel recom- 
mended the Dathenian Psalms for Church services. 

In 1680 a new rendering by Mamix van St. Aldegonde made its 
appearance. The psalms by Mamix were original versifications. In 
many respects they were superior to those written by Datheen, but 
they were less popular. Datheen’s rendering, though less accurate, 
spoke to the hearts of God’s people. Synod of Middelburg, 1581, 
stipulated that the Psalms of David should be sung in the Churches 
but no longer specified that the Psalms of Datheen should be used. 

The Synods favored the Mamix psalms. When the Synod of Dort, 
1618-19, met it did specify psalm singing as previous Synods had 
done, but it did not choose between Datheen and Mamix. Seemingly 
it did not care to stir up discord over this matter. The people in 
general still much preferred Datheen’s work. The psalms of Mamix 
were consequently never put into general use. It was not until the 
year 1775 that the Dathenian psalms were finally set aside. In that 
year the present Psalter was introduced by order of the States Gen- 
eral.— Almost needless to say, the fact that this body introduced 


282 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the present Psalter in Holland, points to a state domination in ec- 
clesiastical affairs which deserves condemnation. — The committee 
which compiled the present Dutch psalter drew from three sources: 
from a versification by Hendrik Ghijsen of Amsterdam; from another 
by an association named “Laus Deo, Salus populo”; and from a ver- 
sification by J. E. Voet, M. D., of ’s Gravenhage. There are serious 
faults attached to this Dutch psalter. Doctrinal, exegetical, and 
aesthetical objections have rightfully been raised against this versi- 
fication, but no new versification has as yet been attempted or ordered. 

Our own Churches here in America have made changes more fre- 
quently during recent years, not as to the psalter used in our Dutch 
services, however. For these services we have constantly used the 
present Dutch Psalter. But as to the psalms sung in our English 
services changes have been made. The True Reformed Protestant 
Dutch Church in 1886 adopted as its book of praise, the Metrical Ver- 
sion of the Psalter used by the United Presbyterian Church of North 
America. This Church united with the Christian Reformed Church 
in 1890 and became known as Classis Hackensack. The Psalter re- 
ferred to became the book of praise for our Churches. This book also 
contained fifty-two hymns arranged and numbered agreeably to the 
fifty- two Lord’s Day sections of the Heidelberg Catechism; the Songs 
of Mary, Zacharias. At the time of the union of 1890 it was under- 
stood and stipulated that the Churches of Classes Hackensack were 
permitted to use these hymns. This Psalter was the official book of 
praise for our Churches until 1914, when Synod decided to adopt the 
new U. P. Psalter. This Psalter had been composed by a joint com- 
mittee of nine American and Canadian denominations. Our Churches 
were represented first by Rev. J. Groen and later by Dr. H. Beets. 
This Psalter served our Churches in many ways very acceptably for 
20 years. In 1934 it was succeeded by the Psalter Hymnal. The best 
of the former Psalter was incorporated into this book. Moreover, 
many of the choice numbers of the venerable Dutch Psalter were 
translated or re-versified by some of our own men with poetic ability 
and set to the much appreciated chorales of Reformation times as 
found in the Dutch Psalter. Consequently today we are once more 
singing some of the beautiful and highly spiritual chorales of Bour- 
geois (1551), Pierre (1562), and others. Moreover, this Psalter 
Hymnal adopted as the official book of praise for all of our Churches, 
contains a large number of hymns, 14/0, the overwhelming majority 
of which were not to be sung in our Churches prior to the revision 
of Article 69 by the Synod of 1934, and its approval of the Psalter 
Hymnal. 

2. The article as it now reads. 

Before the year 1932, the 69th article read as follows: “In the 
Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the 
Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, 
Zacharias and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the 
Hymn of Prayer before the service shall be sung.” Synod of 1932 
revised this article and rendered it as it now reads and as it is found 
at the head of this present discussion. 

The revision of 1932 took place, as will be realized, to make the 
adoption of a large number of select hymns possible. 

The Reformed Churches have sung a few hymns from the very be- 
ginning. Datheen’s Psalter contained versifications of the Ten Com- 
mandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles, the Songs of 
Zacharias, Mary, and Simeon, and a Prayer to be sung before the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 283 

Sermon. In some sections, such as Overijsel, a number of other hymns 
of German origin were permitted for the time being. 

Yet it is also a fact that various early Synods refused to introduce 
and permit more hymns than had been introduced through the Psalter 
of Datheen. Synod of Dort, 1574, decided that the Churches “should 
be satisfied” with the Psalter of Datheen until the General Synod 
should judge otherwise. Synod of Dort, 1578, decided that hymns 
which were not direct reproductions of parts of Holy Writ, should 
not be sung in the Churches. Other hymns, though very good but 
merely reflecting Christian experience and aspirations, were therefore 
ruled out. (Idem, Middelburg, 1581.) The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, 
permitted the very limited number of hymns introduced through 
Datheen’s Psalter, but this Synod definitely added the following clause 
to Article 69: “All other Hymns shall be barred from the Churches, 
and where some have already been introduced, these shall be set 
aside by means found to be most appropriate.” 

For nearly two centuries the Churches of Holland abided by this 
decision of Dort. But in 1807 a committee composed of delegates 
from various Provincial Synods introduced 192 hymns, which it recom- 
mended to the Churches. Later on the singing of these hymns, some 
of which were doctrinally objectionable, was made compulsory* This 
factor became a source of much trouble. It helped to call into life 
the Secession of 1934, under De Cock, Scholte, e.a. 

The chief objections which the Reformed believers have constantly 
entertained against hymn singing in the Churches are as follows: 

1. God gave us the psalms by inspiration to be used in worship. We 
should not add uninspired songs to these inspired, Biblical songs. 

2. The psalms are deeply spiritual. Many hymns are shallow and do 
not require as much spiritual understanding and experience as the 
psalms do. Consequently they are apt to crowd the psalms into disuse 
more and more. Hymns tend to become out of date. Consequently 
there will be a periodic demand for new hymns. And thus miscon- 
ceptions and false doctrines may readily enter the Church through the 
practice of hymn singing. Many erroneous conceptions have entered 
the hearts and minds of God’s people in the past through repeated 
singing of appealing, but faulty hymns. 

None should deny that these arguments carry weight. They should 
call us to constant vigilance. They might even justifiably move a 
Church or a denomination not to permit the singing of hymns in wor- 
ship. But we do not believe that the Word of God is violated when 
hymn singing is introduced. Essentially the singing of hymns in wor- 
ship is not wrong. The New Testament Church may well sing in New 
Testament language. Moved by these convictions our Synod of 1932 
altered Article 69 so as to permit the introduction of a large number 
of hymns. And moved by these same convictions the Reformed 
Churches of the Netherlands altered the article likewise, at the Synod 
of Middelburg, 1933. These latter Churches introduced a much 
smaller number of additional hymns than did our Churches, no doubt 
to assure the psalms of their rightful place in worship. For although 
it was well for our Synod of 1930 to warn our Churches against the 
danger of neglecting the psalms, and for this Synod to state that 
our Churches should continue to be psalm singing Churches in the 
main, yet by accepting a large number of hymns subsequently (1934), 
the danger of neglecting the psalms was much increased. 

At the other hand it should not be forgotten that if only a small 
number of hymns had been accepted, a call for additional hymns 
would soon be heard. We may believe that with a large number of 


284 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


hymns selected our Churches will be at rest on this question for a 
long time to come. And the ever-present danger of introducing in- 
ferior and unsound hymns will not harass us for a good number of 
years. 

It should be noted that Article 69 requires the singing of psalms. 
No Church may set them aside and sing only the hymns. But a 
Church need not use the approved hymns. If any Church desires to 
sing only the psalms it is at full liberty to do so. The psalms should 
predominate in every service unless the subject matter be very spe- 
cial, for instance, on Christmas day. 

For our Dutch services Synod of 1934 decided that the Churches 
were at liberty to use, besides the psalms, the selections of hymns 
approved by the Holland Synod of 1933. 

It may be added here that some Reformed leaders do not favor the 
singing of ordinary hymns in the services of the Church, but they do 
not object to the singing of New Testament passages which have been 
versified. In other words, they do not object to the singing of hymns 
which are renderings of specific parts of the Bible. 

In order to help safeguard the singing of the Psalms in public 
worship, Synod of 1932 decided to urge all our Consistories to see to 
it that the memorization of psalter verses is emphasized in the Cate- 
chism and Sunday School classes. (Acts, 1932, p. 136.) 

3. Choir singing and instrumental music. 

The Synod of 1926 (Art. 57, p. 70) left the matter of choir singing 
to the discretion of the Consistories, but at the same time Synod dis- 
couraged the practice. Synod feared that choir singing in Church 
services would tend to discourage singing by the whole congregation. 
In the Roman Church, prior to the Reformation, as we have noted, 
choir singing was the chief factor in silencing the congregation. 
Today many Churches all around us have excellent choirs and soloists, 
but congregational singing in these very Churches is often extremely 
weak. Secondly, Synod of 1926 discouraged the introduction of choir 
singing because it would be very hard to hold choirs to Article 69 of 
the Church Order. Choirs easily sing songs which are inferior or 
unsound doctrinally, because the music or sentiment of certain songs 
appeal. Neither should it be forgotten that good solo and choir sing- 
ing easily becomes an attraction at Church services. Some singers 
are tempted to exhibit. And some church-goers go not so much to 
worship and to listen to the message of God’s Word, but to hear good 
singing. The singing by experts occupies the center of their interest. 
Furthermore, Churches in their attempt to secure good choirs are 
often tempted to let unworthy persons sing in their choir. Many em- 
ploy paid singers. But even if the commercial element is avoided the 
primary requisite with many is not true spirituality, but rather a 
good voice, ability to sing well. Church choirs have often been a 
source of trouble and grief. Petty jealousies and unworthy ambitions 
are factors which have made for ill-will again and again. Those of 
us that feel much for the introduction of choirs in our services should 
talk with some unbiased and experienced Church choir leaders re- 
garding these matters. A great preacher like Spurgeon never intro- 
duced choir singing. He wanted the people to sing for themselves, 
the whole congregation. And he wanted to keep the Word of God at 
the center of his services. Good singing is a marvelous art and a 
precious gift of God. But in the Church services we believe it is best 
for the whole Church to sing. Strangers who may happen to visit 
our services often express their appreciation of the fact that we have 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


285 


splendid congregational singing, that all, young and old, sing at our 
church services. We may be sure that with the introduction of choirs 
our congregational singing would suffer and wane. Such at best has 
been the general experience of other Churches. And this is but natu- 
ral. When the inferior or average singer hears experts sing he 
naturally becomes timid. He prefers to let the good singers sing 
for him. 

All this does not mean that we should not bring our congregational 
singing to higher levels. We should improve our singing wherever 
possible. The organization of Choral Societies should be encouraged. 
Good singing should be promoted. But let us continue to emphasize 
and to improve congregational singing. And let our good singers help 
to improve our congregational singing. 

It may also be said that Synod of 1926 did not object to choirs 
which would merely aid and sustain the congregational singing. A 
choir which takes the place of the former precentors is unobjection- 
able. 

Synod of 1930 decided that in Churches that have choirs, only the 
psalms and hymns approved according to Article 69, Church Order, 
shall be sung, except anthems be sung which contain only the exact 
words of portions of Holy Writ. (Acts 1930, p. 10.) And the Synod 
of 1928 admonished the Consistories of Churches which have choirs 
to exercise close supervision over the membership of the choir. (Acts 
1928, Article 67.) 

Some of our Churches maintain “song services.” That is to say, 
by arrangement of the Consistory, the congregation sings a number 
of songs for a brief period, just before the service begins. This is no 
doubt a commendatory practice. But why not make this “song service” 
a part of the regular service? Even when it precedes the service, 
only the approved and adopted psalms and hymns should be sung, as 
stands to reason. We definitely favor the incorporation of these song 
services into the regular service. Praise is an important part of every 
service. 

Originally the Reformed leaders, led by Calvin were firmly opposed 
to organ accompaniment of congregational singing. As noted, he dis- 
continued the choirs which in the Roman Churches sang with the 
accompaniment of organs. He preferred to have the congregation 
sing without the aid of these organs. He maintained that musical in- 
struments in divine worship belonged to the period of shadows, i.e., 
to the Old Testament period. 

No doubt Calvin went too far on this score. The evils of Rome 
urged him on. Voetius, long after Calvin, also felt that organ playing 
in church services did not edify, and it might easily detract attention 
from the sermon and become an object of abuse. It should not be for- 
gotten in this connection that at first the Church just met in homes 
and barns and other places so that they had to sing without the or- 
gans. But even when the Reformation was an accomplished fact in 
Holland so that the Roman Churches with their beautiful organs be- 
came the possessions of the Reformed Churches, even then for a long 
time these organs were not used in worship. Week-day concerts were 
permitted, but on Sunday the instruments were at first not used for 
accompaniment of the singing, but the organ in many instances did 
play before and after the sermon. 

The Synod of Dort, 1574, decided that all organ playing at the 
services should cease. This decision was based especially on I Cor. 
14:19, where Paul says that he would rather speak five words with 
his understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue. 


286 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


No doubt these fathers went to this extreme in reaction to the abuse 
as experienced and seen in the Roman Church. In the year 1637 at 
Leyden the Church organ was used for the first time for congrega- 
tional singing. Other Churches soon followed the example. 

Needless to say, our organists should never aim to give anything 
like a concert during divine worship. And the organ should not be 
predominant during the singing but should merely guide and sustain 
the singing of the congregation. 

It may be noted that some old Scotch-Presbyterian Churches still 
condemn the use of organs, as well as the singing of hymns in public 
worship. This is, for instance, the position of the Reformed Presby- 
terian (Covenanter) Church of our own land. 

There should be understanding and cooperation between the Minis- 
ter and the organist. Ideally, the organist should know the text on 
which the Minister is to preach and the main thrust of the sermon, 
so that he may reckon with this in his playing. The organist should 
by all means study the words of the songs to be sung so that he may 
play in keeping with the meaning of the words. 


ARTICLE LXX. 

Since it is proper that the matrimonial state be confirmed in 
the presence of Christ's Church, according to the Form for that 
purpose , the Consistories shall attend to it, 

CHURCH WEDDINGS 

1. Past and present usage in the Netherlands. 

The Roman Church holds that marriage is a Sacrament. Prior to 
the Reformation the Church had full control over marriages. The 
government did not concern itself with this important institution. 
After the Reformation the solemnization of marriages continued as 
a function of the Ministers and the Churches. But it was soon felt 
that the government should have something to say regarding this all 
important matter. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) already declared 
that marriage is in part an ecclesiastical interest and in part a civil 
interest. The Churches urged the adoption of uniform, Scriptural 
marriage laws. But the government seemed loath to do its part. For 
a long time the state held itself aloof and left the matter of mar- 
riages almost entirely to the Churches. Even those who held no 
connection with any Church sought marriage by Ministers. For this 
reason the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, decided that marriages of those 
who stood outside of the Church should not be solemnized publicly 
and with the solemn blessing in the Church.* The Ministers were 
permitted to unite such parties in marriage privately. Jews and 
others were married by government appointees from the close of the 
16th century on. 

Not until after the French Revolution of 1789 did the governments 
solemnize all marriages, taking this right away from the Churches. 
And not until 1848 did the Dutch government annex this right to 
itself. jFrom then on the Church could and did “confirm” the mar- 


• Post-Acta, 162nd Session, III. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 287 

riages of its members, but the actual solemnization, valid before the 
law, was performed by government officials. 

In one of the oldest editions of our Church Order, 1586, we there- 
fore find that the Churches are urged to abide by usages regarding 
marriage ceremonies then prevalent, until the government should have 
taken action. The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, virtually adopted the same 
reading, and stressed that uniformity was highly desirable and that 
the government should be asked as soon as possible to take action. 
In 1905 the Churches of Holland rewrote this antiquated 70th article 
of the Church Order, as it is also found in our Church Order since 
1914. 

At present the marriage proper takes place before a civil magis- 
trate. The Church no longer has the right to solemnize marriages. 
Consequently Christian marriages are confirmed in the Church, upon 
authorization of the Consistory concerned, immediately after the 
marriage as a civil institution has been consummated at the court- 
house. For this reason the Holland Form speaks of confirmation of 
marriages and not of their solemnization. We copied the Dutch word- 
ing in 1914, but this is a mistake, since our weddings are the actual 
solemnization of marriages. Our new Form has reckoned with these 
facts and it is very correctly called: Form for the Solemnization of 
Marriage. With us solemnization for the state and confirmation by 
the Church coincide. In private weddings the Minister only solemnizes 
the marriage for the state. In Church weddings he solemnizes the 
marriage for the state, and confirms the same for the Church. 

2. Why is it “proper that the matrimonial state he confirmed in the 
presence of Christ’s Church”? 

Because the Church has a very vital interest in marriage. Confir- 
mation of the matrimonial state by the Church implies, first of all, 
that the Church and the domain of the covenant of grace which it 
occupies officially sanction the marriage in question; and secondly, 
that the Church in its special prayers specifically pleads for God’s 
blessing upon the marriage. The interest of the Church in the mar- 
riages its members contract is just as real and vital as the interest 
of the relatives and of the state in these marriages. The Church 
should therefore be recognized. The marriages of its members means 
much to the Church because God builds His Church covenantally 
through the seed of the Church. From children to be bom God con- 
tinues and expands His Church, and without thorough Christian homes 
the Church is bound to wane and fail. 

In many of our American Churches all around us couples will be 
married in the church building, although the marriages are private 
in character. For reasons of sentiment and style perhaps some of our 
own people who do not care for a Church wedding in the real sense 
of that term, nevertheless desire to be “married in church.” Such 
private marriages performed in the church building are of course 
not Church weddings. Our Ministers and Consistories should discour- 
age the use of our church auditoriums for private weddings. Regular 
Church weddings should become common. Private marriages per- 
formed in the church building will only retard the general introduction 
of Church weddings. 

3. Proper procedure regarding Church weddings. 

The privilege of having their marriage solemnized before the con- 
gregation of God should be requested by the parties concerned at a 
regular Consistory meeting, or the request should be presented to a 


288 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


committee of the Consistory appointed for this purpose. As the Form 
stipulates the contemplated Church marriage is announced to the 
Church and thus takes place with the approval of the congregation. 
If anyone knows of reasons why the marriage should not take place 
— such as unbelief and godlessness in one or both parties concerned, 
or immoral conduct in one of the parties which would render the con- 
templated marriage illegal before the state, or contrary to Scriptures 
— . he is duty bound to notify the Consistory without delay. 

As to the day of the week for Church weddings, it is perfectly 
proper that marriages be solemnized in one of the regular Sunday 
services. This is to be preferred to week-day Church weddings. When 
the marriage takes place on Sunday the Minister can preach an ap- 
propriate sermon. And sermons on the significance of Christian mar- 
riage, and our duty before God in the marriage state are certainly 
very necessary in this day and age of divorces, elopements, camal- 
mindedness, etc. True, when marriage takes place during a week-day 
the Minister will also preach a short sermon, but in a brief sermonette 
he can say very little. And what he says will perhaps be less effective 
because of the wedding reception and distracting activities of various 
kinds. Besides, as a rule, only a small part of the congregation can 
be expected at week-day Church marriages, especially if these be- 
come the rule rather than the exception. We also feel that marriages 
solemnized at Sunday services are as a rule more solemn than those 
which take place at a special week-day service. But week-day Church 
weddings are not to be condemned. 

Week-day services held for the purpose of uniting a couple in 
marriage are to be considered and ordered as services of the Word 
in the ordinary sense. They are services held under supervision of 
the Consistory as all regular services. The salutation and benediction 
are pronounced as usual. The Word is also preached, though briefly. 

Marriages before Christ’s Church should be well arranged, but also 
sober in the good sense of that word. Frats and frills should be 
avoided. Overly much “style” tends to detract. Our Church weddings 
should never become “big attractions.” The beauty of Christian sim- 
plicity should be cultivated also here, rather than attractions and 
appendages borrowed from the world. The Word of God should oc- 
cupy the all important place in these special services. 

4. Who are entitled to ecclesiastical solemnization of marriage? 

All members of our Churches whose contemplated marriages are 
not anti-Biblical and whose confession and conduct does not mark 
them as unbelievers. This includes not only members-in-full, but also 
those who have not yet made profession of their faith, though they 
were baptized in infancy. Even one who is not baptized, but who 
manifests interest in God and things spiritual, and promises to use 
the means of grace available to him, might be united in marriage 
before the Church. However, it should be definitely understood that 
he (or she) will fully cooperate in permitting the Baptism and Chris- 
tian instruction of the children which may be bora out of the marriage 
contemplated. If one of the parties be an unbeliever, by profession 
or conduct or both, their marriage may not be solemnized before the 
Church. Neither will any Christian Minister desire to unite a believer 
to an unbeliever in private, as is to be understood. 

One belonging to another evangelical Church may be united in 
marriage to a member of one of our Churches if the “outsider” agrees 
that the children shall be baptized in one of our Churches and reared 
in the Reformed faith, just as in the case of an individual as yet be- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


289 


longing’ to no Church at all. Needless to say, there is no ruling in 
the Church Order regarding this and kindred questions. We merely 
give our personal convictions regarding these questions. 

Of course, our parents and Ministers should constantly warn our 
children and young people against the danger of mixed marriages. 
Marriages with those who belong to one of our own Churches should 
remain to be the ideal. 

5. What should be noted regarding our new Form? 

The Form for the Solemnization of Marriage was adopted by our 
Synod of 1934. It superceded a Form which had been used since Re- 
formation times. The new Form is somewhat shorter and optimistic 
in tone, whereas the old Form struck a grave and heavy tone, re- 
minding the couple to be married forthwith that married folks must 
look for many hardships. 

The introductory statement, not part of the Form proper, reads: 
“ Where the wedding takes place before the congregation (cf. Art. 70 
of the Church Order);, the following announcement is to be made on 
the previous Sunday: . . This wording is bound to give the reader 
the impression that the Form can be used equally well for marriages 
performed privately. This, however, is not entirely correct. The Form 
is definitely written for regular Church weddings and can only be 
used consistently with alterations. For instance, the words: “Beloved 
in the Lord, we are assembled here in the presence of God . . .” clear- 
ly refer to a gathering of the congregation. And the statement, 
“Since we have received no lawful objections to their proposed union, 
. . .” are really out of place when the marriage is performed privately, 
inasmuch as neither the Church, nor anyone else has been given op- 
portunity to object. 

Furthermore the declaration, “According to the laws of the State 
and the ordinances of the Church of Christ, I now pronounce you, 
. . . , husband and wife, . . can hardly be used for private weddings 
since the Minister in the case of private marriages acts as an agent 
of the State, but not upon authority of the Church. The only ordi- 
nances which the Church has made regarding weddings are contained 
in Article 70 of the Church Order, and this article provides for wed- 
dings before the Church and in no way regulates or authorizes private 
weddings. 

The giving away of the bride to the bridegroom, which the new 
Form allows, has been borrowed from other old Forms as the very 
choice of words in “Who gives this woman to this man?” also indi- 
cates. Perhaps it would have been better if this optional element had 
been omitted and left to the betrothal or engagement. 

The Roman Church considers holy matrimony to be a Sacrament. 
We do not. In view of our Reformed conception it is doubtful whether 
it is wise for the Ministers to declare the bridegroom and bride hus- 
band and wife, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit.” It is doubtlessly borrowed from the baptismal formula. 

6. The engagement. 

In the land of our forefathers marriages among Reformed people 
are consummated in three stages. First comes the engagement. Then 
follows the solemnization by the civil authorities. And finally the 
confirmation by the Church takes place. No Reformed man or woman 
would think of omitting the last step. That would be a disgrace, and 
would stigmatize the couple instantly. 

A word regarding the first step mentioned, the engagement, will 


290 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


not be out of place. For generations back this first step has always 
been held in honor among Reformed people. Today among us, in very 
many instances, the engagement is merely a personal agreement be- 
tween the young man and young woman, often made in secret and 
kept in secret. The parents are hardly consulted. This is not as it 
should be. Marriage is a very important institution, and many young 
people are apt to act rashly and inconsiderately, not realizing their 
own best interests and the great significance, for good or evil, in- 
volved in marriage. Moreover, marriage is not merely the concern 
of the couple promising marriage. It is to a certain limited extent 
also the affair of the families involved. Marriage brings families to- 
gether and consequently the relatives of both sides have an interest. 
Parents moreover have responsibilities toward their children and their 
spiritual welfare, also for their future regarding things temporal. 
Because of these parental responsibilities before God and parental 
rights towards their children no engagements should take place with- 
out the knowledge and approval of the parents or guardians involved. 
And this is likewise to the best interest of our young people, generally 
speaking. The old custom which prescribed that the young man asked 
for the hand of the girl of his choice from the father is wholly com- 
mendatory. And engagements should take place with the consent of 
the parents of both the young man and the young woman. It would 
be well if more were made in our circles of engagements or betrothals, 
especially since there is so much looseness and godlessness in regard 
to marriage. 

All hasty marriages, perhaps secretly consummated and announced 
as a surprise to relatives and friends should be frowned upon and 
condemned. And no marriages should be consummated by any of our 
Ministers, either privately or before the Church, unless it is an estab- 
lished fact that parental approval, preferably at the time of the en- 
gagement, was obtained. Just because the State does not require 
parental consent of young people who are of age is no reason why the 
Church should not require this consent. 

As stands to reason, elopements are to be condemned. Neither 
should marriages be kept secret for weeks and months. All this is of 
the world and does not fit in with biblical, Reformed conceptions. 

It is said that before a Roman priest unites a couple in marriage 
he confers with them regarding obligations and duties related to mar- 
riage. He is said to warn them against worldly standards and morals. 
Who of us, knowing the ways of the world of today somewhat, would 
care to say that counsel by a trusted spiritual leader to those about 
to enter the marriage state, is wholly unnecessary? 

7. The duties of Consistories. 

The present article states that “the Consistories shall attend to it.” 
Consistories should therefore encourage weddings before the Church 
of Christ. The matter should be mentioned to young people’s classes, 
in sermons, at the time of family visitations, etc. Church Visitors 
would do well to inquire whether the Consistories are faithful in this 
respect. Very often much is made of funerals. A “service” in the 
Church is insisted upon. But the confirmation of marriages before 
the Church of Christ is considered as unnecessary. This is not as it 
should be. Let Consistories enlighten their people regarding these 
matters. 


CONCERNING CENSURE AND ADMONITION 


ARTICLE LXXI. 

As Christian Discipline is of a spiritual nature , and exempts 
no one from Civil trial or punishment by the Authorities, so 
also besides Civil punishment there is need of Ecclesiastical 
Censures, to reconcile the sinner with the Church and his neigh- 
bor and to remove the offense out of the Church of Christ. 

ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURE 

The fourth main division of our Church Order concerns itself with 
censure and ecclesiastical admonition. Articles 71 to 81 cover this 
subject as follows: 

Article 71, the character, necessity, objects, and purpose of ecclesi- 
astical discipline. 

Articles 72 and 73, mutual discipline according to Christ’s rule in 
Matt. 18. 

Articles 74-78, consistorial discipline regarding members in general. 

Articles 79 and 80, consistorial discipline regarding office-bearers as 
such. 

Article 81, mutual censure by office-bearers. 

Article 82-86, regulate various matters not directly belonging to 
the department of discipline. 

1. Thel character of ecclesiastical discipline. 

Article 71 very definitely stresses the fact that ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline is spiritual in nature, and that it “exempts no one from Civil 
trial or punishment by the Authorities.” The article clearly distin- 
guishes between ecclesiastical authority and civil authority, between 
the domain of the Church and the domain of the State. The Church 
and the State each occupy their own sphere. When a church member 
commits a crime punishable by law, he is in no wise exempted from 
punishment by confessing his crime to the Church. For instance, if 
some church member should commit murder he would naturally be dis- 
ciplined. In case he should manifest sincere repentance the Church 
would lift the censure and the sinner in question would be restored 
eventually to all privileges of full membership. But the reconciliation 
of this criminal with the Church would in no wise exempt him from 
trial and punishment by law. The State would be compelled to sentence 
and punish such a criminal even to the extent of capital punishment, 
if necessary. As a murderer he may have to die in the electric chair 
though the Church has readmitted him to the Lord’s Supper as one 
whose sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. 

The opening words of Article 71 therefore specify a principle which 
the Reformed Churches were eager to maintain. They did not believe 
that the Church should dominate the State (Rome), nor that the State 
should rule the Church (Erastian, original Lutheran conception). 
Calvin very vigorously contended for the independence of the Church 
versus the State in Geneva and also for years contended to keep the 


291 


292 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


articles of Church Discipline in the Church Order of Geneva, while 
the Civil Authorities desired the cancellation of these articles. Not 
until 1555 was the Church’s biblical right and duty on this score fully 
established at Geneva. Calvin, it may be said, stressed the need of 
Church discipline. The same is true for the Reformed Churches of 
France and Scotland.* And of the Churches of the Netherlands also 
stressed the necessity of Church discipline. The Convention at Wezel, 
the first general ecclesiastical gathering of the Reformation Churches 
in Holland, 1568, adopted 21 articles relative to Church Discipline. 

But the Reformed Churches never meant to rob the State of its right 
and duty to punish those guilty of civil transgressions. The Reformed 
Churches held and still hold that both Church and State have their 
own spheres of authority from God and their responsibility before 
Him. Christian discipline is of a spiritual nature and exempts no one 
from civil trial or punishment. No doubt our fathers also enunciated 
this principle so clearly to avoid all misunderstanding and to gain the 
civil approval of the Church Order, which approval was much coveted 
in those days. 

Ecclesiastical “punishment” then bears a spiritual character. It is 
Christian discipline. Christ gave His Church a spiritual authority 
which is administered by the officers which He gives to the Church. 
(Eph. 4:11-16; I Cor. 12:28; Heb. 5:4.) In the exercise of this spir- 
itual “punishment,” spiritual means and weapons are used, i.e., ad- 
monition, warning, censure, conviction, and excommunication. “For 
the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before 
God to the casting down of strongholds.” (II Cor. 10:4.) 

It should also be noted in this connection that our Church Order 
merely indicates certain principles to be followed in the exercise of 
ecclesiastical discipline. The Church Order does not specify in detail 
how investigations are to be conducted; how long one should be dis- 
ciplined before the final step of excommunication is taken; which 
specific sins are worthy of discipline, etc., etc. The civil authorities 
have a penal code by which they are guided. The Church has no 
penal code, for the Church does not seek to administer external pun- 
ishment, but the Church seeks to save the sinner and to promote the 
glory of God. To attain these ends each case must be dealt with ac- 
cording to its own peculiar circumstances, and as soon as the end in 
view has been gained ecclesiastical discipline ceases. On this point 
Dr. F. L. Rutgers aptly remarked: “No penal code can be constructed 
for ecclesiastical discipline. The purpose of discipline demands a 
maximum of variability in its application, not a set of rules for con- 
stant application. Just so the principles are established, and just so 
these are applied in every particular case, for only then will ecclesi- 
astical discipline function correctly.”** 

Discipline according to the Reformed conception is not the same as 
punishment. The State punishes to right a wrong committed and to 
vindicate justice. This principle is primary in the application of civil 
punishment. In the ecclesiastical sphere, however, the principle of 
correction is primary. For this reason ecclesiastical discipline is 
chastisement, rather than punishment, just as in Dutch we distinguish 
between “tucht” and “straf.” In keeping with all this the opening 
words of Article 71, “Christian Discipline is of a spiritual nature 
. . .” should receive full emphasis. 


• College- V oordrachten. Dr. F. L.. Rutgers over Gereformeerd Kerk- 
recht, bewerkt door. Dr. J. De Jong, 1918, p. 10. 

•• Idem. p. 11. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


293 


2. The necessity of ecclesiastical discipline. 

Dr. F. L. Rutgers is reported to have given four grounds upon 
which the Reformed have based the Church's right and duty to exer- 
cise discipline, namely: 

A. Scripture passages which directly or indirectly enjoin disci- 
pline: * 

1. Matt. 18:16-18. These words clearly indicate that the Church 
has a right and duty to censure, even to excommunication, although 
they also teach us that personal wrongs, known to the transgressor 
and the party wronged only, or to a very limited number, should be 
settled privately if at all possible. 

2. Matt. 16:16-19. In these passages Christ gives to Peter the 
power to bind and loose. Doubtless Christ here speaks to Peter as 
representative of all the Apostles, for in John 20:23 the self-same 
power is attributed to all the Apostles. But the Apostles are but the 
representatives of the New Testament Church, and so we may con- 
clude that in Matt. 16:16-19 and John 20:23 Christ charges the Church 
to exercise discipline. The wording of Matt. 18:17, “And if he refuse 
to hear them, tell it to the Church: and, if he refuse to hear the 
Church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican”, 
also pleads for this contention. 

3. I Cor. 5. In this passage Paul prescribes excommunication re- 
garding the grievous sinner in the Corinthian Church, and in II Cor. 
2:7 he directs his readmission. 

4. In numerous passages God’s Word tells us not to fellowship with 
heretics and such as had forsaken the Lord. (Cf. Rev. 2:14-16; Titus 
3:10-11; II John 10.) 

5. Passages which condemn intermingling of believers and unbe- 
lievers, the holy and the unholy. (Cf. II Cor. 6:14.) 

B. Old Testament injunctions regarding the removal of sinners out 
of the congregation of God. (Cf. Ex. 22:20; Lev. 24:11-16.) 

C. The fact that from Apostolic days on the early Church exer- 
cised discipline, as Cyprian, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers 
tell us. 

D. The general testimony of various ancient Church Councils 
agrees that the Church cannot continue to exist in its purity unless 
it exercises discipline. 

As will be understood the necessity for ecclesiastical discipline is 
found particularly in the New Testament injunctions which demand 
its exercise. In other words, discipline must be maintained in the 
Church because God commanded it. Besides the passages indicated 
the following may be cited: Rom. 16:17; I Thess. 5:14; II Thess. 
3:6,14; I Tim. 5:1,2. 

3. The objects of ecclesiastical discipline. 

The Roman Church applied censure also to buildings, lands, books, 
etc. The Reformation Churches would have none of this, inasmuch as 
they found no Scriptural warrant for the practice. Church discipline 
should be limited to persons and cannot be applied to lifeless objects. 
Neither can it apply to persons already dead, (heretics, false teachers, 
etc.) as Rome sought to do. 

According to Article 71 the object of church discipline is the sinner, 
for we read : “. . . to reconcile the sinner with the Church . . .” Church 
discipline, therefore, applies to men or women, members of the Church, 
who have committed censurable sin. It does not apply to those who 


• Cf. Collegre-Voordrachtett, etc., 1918. pp. 14-15. 


294 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


are outside of the Church (versus Rome), nor to those of the Church 
who persist in resigning their membership in spite of numerous and 
urgent and long continued admonitions. Membership in the organized, 
instituted Church is in the last analysis a matter of personal choice 
and responsibility before God, and no Church has the right to compel 
one to be a member of a certain Church against his own conscience 
or will. Let it be well understood: We regard the resigning of one’s 
membership as a very serious step. As a rule it is a very serious sin, 
for very often it is resorted to in order to escape the full force of 
discipline. In such cases the Consistory should not yield lightly and 
should refuse to acquiesce or accept a resignation unless the party 
concerned insists on resigning. The promises made and the obliga- 
tions assumed at the time of confession of faith give a Consistory 
the right to apply censure even to excommunication, and unless the 
sinner in question persists in severing his relationship with the 
Church, the Consistory ought to perform its full duty. No easy-going, 
weak sentimentality should cause a Consistory to be remiss in its 
duty on this score. The sinner concerned and the Church involved are 
both entitled to full exercise of discipline. This is in complete har- 
mony with what the Synod of 1918 decided. (Art. 53, p. 66.) 

It stands to reason that the Churches should be much more con- 
siderate of those members who wish to leave one of our Churches 
because they no longer agree with our confessional standards and 
doctrinal position. If such members insist on leaving, because they 
feel compelled in conscience before God, after the Consistory has en- 
deavored to show them their error, then the Consistory may acquiesce 
in their action leaving, however, the full responsibility for their de- 
parture with them, which fact should also be clearly stated to the 
congregation. 

Those who remove from the Church and fail to affiliate with one 
of our other Churches by means of an attestation of membership, by 
their very removal and neglect place themselves outside of the Church 
and its government. This is a very serious sin, but such people are 
no longer subject to Church discipline in the full sense, although the 
nearest Church, if possible, should admonish them persistently. If 
distance does not prohibit, the Church which they have left should 
work with them diligently also. 

Sometimes members of the Church withdraw themselves from the 
meetings of public worship and seek edification elsewhere. They do 
not seek to resign but simply neglect their duty toward their own 
Church. The Christian conduct of these members may be unobjection- 
able except for this one irregularity. The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 
Reformed Churches of Holland, decided in 1914 that Consistories should 
continue to admonish such irregular members and if need be they 
should refuse to give them the Sacraments, but that they should not 
excommunicate them. 

It need hardly be mentioned that discipline should always be indi- 
vidual. The Roman Church would interdict whole communities. That 
is, by order of the Pope the clergy were forbidden to perform religious 
services or to administer the Sacraments. Whole regions were placed 
under the papal ban. Thus the innocent and the guilty suffered alike. 
Our Church discipline is always individual. No two members, though 
they should be husband and wife and though their sins are identical, 
are ever disciplined as a group, but always individually. 

Only those can be objects of ecclesiastical discipline who are fully 
responsible. Those who are insane or mentally irresponsible are ad- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


295 


monished inasfar as they are susceptible to admonition, but regular 
Church discipline is not applied to them. 

All men, rich and poor alike, are subject to discipline. The Roman 
Church exempted the Pope, and the Episcopalian and Lutheran 
Churches exempted civil rulers, but the Reformed Churches placed 
one and all under the jurisdiction and grace of Christ, no matter what 
his station in life might be. 

Children may also become objects of discipline. But since they are 
incomplete members, discipline in their case will also be incomplete. 
They are members who have not yet come to full responsibility and 
understanding. Consequently they are censured, if need be, through 
admonitions given, but they are not excommunicated and placed out- 
side of the Church. As a rule Consistories will have to talk to the 
parents of unruly or worldly children first of all, inasmuch as the 
parents may be to blame more than the children. But children must 
also be admonished directly. See Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20. 

Baptized members who have reached years of discretion and who 
willfully neglect to make profession of their faith also become ob- 
jects of discipline. They must be instructed and admonished prayer- 
fully. If they continue to be indifferent and unbelieving the Church 
finally declares that their relationship to the Church has been severed. 
Their names are stricken from the rolls of the Church. The procedure 
to be followed in such cases has been indicated by Synod of 1918. 
(Cf. Art. 52.) 

Consistories should not hesitate to do their full duty regarding men 
or women who have come to years of understanding and manifest no 
sense of sin and of faith in Jesus Christ. If their words and conduct 
are anti-Christian action should be all the more drastic. But even 
those who have a historical faith and still come to divine worship, if 
there is no real interest and prayerful seeking on their part, although 
their general conduct may not be altogether godless and wicked, their 
names should not be carried on the membership books indefinitely. 
The Church of Christ, strictly speaking, is composed of living mem- 
bers only, though some of these, inasmuch as they are children, are 
incomplete. The organized or instituted Church should reflect in its 
membership as much as possible the membership of the Church of 
Christ, the spiritual body of our Lord. The Churches should therefore 
only carry complete and incomplete (minor) members. Ideally there 
is no room for a third class, so called “members-by-baptism.” These 
unfaithful children of the Church, having reached years of under- 
standing, should be labored with persistently, and if they refuse to 
repent and believe, their names should be removed from the member- 
ship book. They should never be accorded a semi-official standing in 
the Church so that they feel that their position is after all quite 
normal and unobjectionable. 

It is the stand of our Churches, by Synodical conclusion, that if it 
becomes manifest that a member belongs to a secret, oathbound or- 
ganization, he shall be disciplined. (Cf. General Rules, Art. 55, 1881.) 
In harmony with this decision it is the duty of Consistories “to put 
the question to those who desire to be received as members and ad- 
mitted to the Lord’s Supper whether they belong to any society bound 
by oath or solemn vow.” (Cf. Acts 1867, Art. 15.) The implication 
is, of course, that those who do belong to a lodge are not to be ad- 
mitted to the Lord’s Table. Their profession of faith is unacceptable. 

Why do the Christian Reformed Churches hold to this position re- 
garding lodge-membership? Strictly speaking, because these organi- 
zations are essentially anti-Christian in character. The teachings of 


296 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the lodge imply that if one lives up to the ideals and standards of 
the lodge, all is well. He who dies as a good lodge member is con- 
sidered to be saved, even though he did not believe in Christ as Son 
of God and only Saviour. Thus the lodge is essentially anti-Christian. 
It is indeed religious, but its religion is not Biblical Christianity. It 
is far rather a modernistic, paganistic corruption of Christianity. By 
joining the lodge one expresses agreement with its doctrines. Which 
means that when one joins the lodge he denies Christ as Saviour and 
he denies Biblical Christianity. All this takes place upon fearful 
oaths. We object to the uncalled for secrecy of the lodge and to the 
fact that members are asked to swear to matters which are only re- 
vealed to them after they have sworn to them ; we object to the world- 
ly atmosphere which the lodge fosters, etc. But our essential objec- 
tion to the lodge is its false, anti-Christian teachings. If the lodge is 
right, Christianity is false. No man can consistently be a member of 
the lodge and also of the Church of Christ. 

It is interesting to note that the Synod of the Reformed Churches 
of Holland, Utrecht, 1923, Art. 143, came to the following conclusions 
regarding the Independent Order of Odd-Fellows: 

a. That Consistories must continue to admonish members in full, 
and members by Baptism, to sever their connections with this Order. 

b. That Consistories must discipline those who continue in this evil. 

It should be clear that the issue is not at all whether the Churches 

can censure societies or groups of members. To do so would be un- 
Reformed. To this all agree. But this is the issue: Does lodge-mem- 
bership involve, expressed or unexpressed, a denial of fundamental 
Christian doctrines or not ? Our Churches have answered this question 
in the affirmative. We are fully persuaded on this point, and conse- 
quently anyone who joins a lodge and refuses to break with it is cen- 
sured for his anti-Christian profession and conduct.* It may safely 
be said that he who joins the lodge sins against the First Command- 
ment, for the God of Unitarianism, Modernism, and Lodgism is not 
the God of the Bible and of the Ten Commandments. 

Regarding Church membership and membership in our so-called 
neutral labor unions various Synods have made pronouncements. Par- 
ticularly the Synods of 1904 and 1916 dealt with this matter. The 
latter Synod was somewhat more tolerant in its conclusions than the 
Synod of 1904 had been. However, the conclusions of 1916 did not 
settle the issue. To the mind of many these conclusions were taken 
prematurely and without sufficient warrant. The matter continued to 
be a subject of debate and study. Synod of 1928 accepted a number 


* The instruction books written by high officers in various lodges, and 
for the instruction of lodge members, reveal that the lodge is anti-Chris- 
tian in character. To this judgment many believers, who have themselves 
been lodge members, agree. For example, W. P. Loveless, an ex-chaplain 
of the Masonic Lodge of Wheaton, 111., testifies: “The whole structure 
of lodge procedure is built upon the erroneous teachings of the ‘universal 
fatherhood of God’ and ‘the universal brotherhood of man.' (Jno. 8:44); 
and the necessity for salvation alone by grace through faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8,9) is entirely ignored.” And again: “They (Chris- 
tianity and lodgism) are two opposite beliefs. I cannot believe that I am 
saved only by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and still be- 
lieve in the religion of the lodge which teaches that we are saved by 
character and good works.” (Cf. Loveless, The Christian and Secret Socie- 
ties, National Chr. Assn., p. 10.) E. A. Coyle, a Unitarian Minister and 
at one time also Worshipful Master of the Masonic lodge. Marietta Ohio 
says: “Nearly all of those monitors (books of instructions of fraternal 
orders) have, as their very heart, the ‘fatherhood of God’, the ‘brother- 
hood of man,' immortality, and salvation by character.” (Quoted by Love- 
less, p. 13.) 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


297 


of clear-cut resolutions regarding this question. (Cf. Acts of Synod, 
1928, pp. 91-96 or J. L. Schaver, Christian Reformed Church Order, 
pp. 116, 117.) 

Synod of 1928 also appointed a committee charged to serve Synod 
1930 with advice regarding the question what might be done to revive 
Christian organizations in the social sphere. (The Christian Labor 
Union, headquarters in Grand Rapids, had disappeared from the scene 
due in part to the compromising position which the Synod of 1916 had 
taken regarding labor unions. ) 

In response to a report of this committee of which Prof. L. Berkhof 
served as president and Prof. C. Bouma as secretary. Synod of 1930 
adopted a number of important conclusions which may be found on 
pages 74-76 of the Acts of Synod, 1930. 

More than one Synod, the one of 1936 lastly, has recommended the 
Christian Labor Alliance, headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich., to our 
leaders and our people for their moral support and cooperation. (Cf. 
Acts 1936, Art. 50.) 

Regarding decisions pertaining to anti-Christian labor unions, it 
should be remembered that our Churches do not discipline societies or 
groups of persons, but only individuals who make themselves guilty 
in doctrine or life regarding censurable sins; who believe and do 
things which are clearly transgressions of God's Commandments. Our 
ecclesiastical decisions concerning anti-Christian lodges, unions, etc., 
are as such not disciplinary decisions against these organizations, but 
ecclesiastical conclusions mutually arrived at by all the Churches 
concerned, according to which Consistories are to admonish and dis- 
cipline Church members if need be. 

Synod of 1928 adopted a number of resolutions regarding worldli- 
ness, which also concern the matter of discipline. These resolutions 
read as follows: 

L Synod reminds our people of the doctrinal and ethical principles 
which should guide the Christian in his relation to the world in gen- 
eral and in the matter of amusements in particular, and urges all our 
professors, ministers, elders, and Bible teachers to emphasize these 
principles in this age of prevailing worldliness. 

Some of the most important of these principles follow: 

1. The honor of God requires: 

a. That the Christian’s amusements should at the very least not 
conflict with the honor of God. 

b. That we and our children should be keenly aware, also in our 
amusements, of our covenant relation to God as His peculiar 
people. 

c. That the Christian shall deem it a matter of loyalty to God not 
to further the interests of an institution which is manifestly 
an instrument of Satan for attack on the Kingdom of God. 

2. From the consideration of the welfare of man we conclude: 

a. That there is a legitimate place in life for such amusements as 
are recreative for body and mind; 

b. That no physical recreation or mental diversion should be toler- 
ated which is in any way or in any degree subversive of our 
spiritual and moral well-being; 

c. That, even when our amusements are not spiritually or morally 
harmful, they should not be allowed to occupy more than a 
secondary, subordinate, place in life. 

3. The principle of spiritual separation from the world: 

a. Does not imply that Christians should form separate communi- 
ties or should shun all association with ungodly men (I Cor. 
5:99 ft.); 

b. Forbids friendship, in distinction from fellowship, with evil men 
(James 4:4); 

c. Requires that we shun all evil in the world; 

d. Demands a weaning away of the heart from the transient things 
of this present earthly sphere (Colossians 3:1,2). 


298 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


4. Christian Liberty: 

a. Consists in freedom from the power of sin; in freedom from the 
law: its curse, its demands as a condition for earning eternal 
life, its oppressive yoke; and in liberty of conscience with refer- 
ence to human ordinances and things neither prescribed nor con- 
demned, either directly or indirectly, in the Word of God; 

b. Is limited in its exercise by the law of love (I Cor. 8:9, 13), the 
law of self-preservation (Matt. 18:8, 9), and the law of self- 
denial, which often requires the renunciation of things in them- 
selves lawful (Matt. 16:24). 

II. While several practices are found in our circles which cannot 
pass the muster of these principles, and while all our amusements, 
not only theatre-attendance, dancing, and card-playing, should be 
judged in the light of these principles, yet Synod feels constrained, 
in pursuance of the decisions of the Synod of 1926 in the matter of 
amusements, to call particular attention to this familiar trio. It great- 
ly deplores the increasing prevalence among us of these forms of 
amusement, urgently warns our members against them, and further 
refers our people to the material on the subject given in the report 
of the Committee on Worldly Amusements, (Agendum, Part I, pp. 
31-47). 

III. Synod urges all our leaders and all our people to pray and 
labor for the awakening and deepening of spiritual life in general, 
and to be keenly aware of the absolute indispensability of keeping 
our religious life vital and powerful, through daily prayer, the earnest 
searching of the Scriptures, and through engaging in practical Chris- 
tian works, which are the best antidote against worldliness. 

IV. Synod exhorts all our leaders to warn unceasingly against the 
prevailing spirit and forms of worldliness in order that our Reformed 
principles in these matters may be re-emphasized; insists that these 
warnings shall be given not only in the preaching, but also in our 
Catechism and Sunday School classes, in family-visitation, and in 
personal contact whenever occasion presents itself; and urges that 
these warnings shall be given also in our school-rooms. 

V. Synod reminds Consistories that in nominations for or appoint- 
ments to positions of responsibility in our churches, careful attention 
should be paid to conduct in the matter of amusements; and suggests 
that also other bodies, such as Boards of Christian Schools, City Mis- 
sions, etc., heed this same matter in their appointments. 

VI. Synod urge Consistories to deal in the spirit of love, yet also 
in view of the strong tide of worldliness which is threatening our 
churches, very firmly with all cases of misdemeanor and offensive 
conduct in the matter of amusements; and, where repeated admoni- 
tions by the Consistory are left unheeded, to apply discipline as a 
last resort. 

VII. Synod instructs Consistories to inquire of those who ask to 
be examined previous to making public profession of their faith and 
partaking of the Lord’s Supper as to their stand and conduct in the 
matter of worldly amusements, and, if it appears that they are not 
minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration, not 
to permit their public profession. (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1928, pp. 86-89.) 

We have somewhat considered the nature of these resolutions in 
our explanation of Art. 61, and shall not repeat here. We merely 
stress the fact that these resolutions of 1928 should not be interpreted 
legalistically. The Synod clearly placed the emphasis where it be- 
longs, namely on spiritual, consecrated Christian living. Certain forms 
of worldly amusements are mentioned, it is true, but only by way of 
example and because these were being adopted by many of our people, 
whereas Synod was persuaded that these and like amusements were 
either wrong in themselves or laden with grave dangers to spiritual 
life. 

It certainly would be unwise and unbiblical for our Churches and 
Consistories to single out certain sins of worldliness and apply disci- 
pline regarding these, while passing by other evils, greater perhaps 
in some instances than those singled out. No Consistory should raise 
the familiar trio of theatre-attendance, dancing, and card-playing to 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


299 


shibboleths for membership in good and regular standing in its 
Church, while passing by many other forms of sin, such as dishonesty; 
road-house or night-club attendance; Sabbath desecration; the read- 
ing of harmful, impure, lustful literature; drunkenness; profanity; 
the practice of unbiblical birth-control; etc., etc. 

It should also be noted that Synod of 1928 declared that discipline 
should be applied as a last resort, not merely for those who are per- 
sistently guilty of worldly living in certain specific forms but with 
worldliness in whatsoever form it may manifest itself. This harmon- 
izes with the fact that the resolutions do not require Consistories 
simply to ask of those that desire to make profession of faith whether 
they indulge in theatre-attendance, dancing and card-playing. No, 
Consistories are to ask applicants regarding “their stand and conduct 
in the matter of worldly amusements, and if it appears that they are 
not minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration, 
not to permit their public professions.” This, as we note, covers the 
whole field of worldly amusements. 

Consistories will do wise to inquire regarding whichever definite 
forms of worldly amusements may be popular and enticing for the 
day and circumstances and locality in which a Church finds itself. 
But whether the familiar trio should be mentioned, or whether other 
evils deserve special inquiry, or whether an inquiry in general terms 
is sufficient, will depend on many ever-changing circumstances, and 
on the parties making profession of faith. Let us be thorough and 
unafraid, but let us also avoid legalistic extemalism. And as to dis- 
cipline, let us not hesitate to do our full duty, but neither let us set 
up legalistic, partial standards. 

Let the rule of Art. 72, Church Order, which indicates that one 
must be disciplined if he “errs in doctrine or offends in conduct . . .” 
continue to guide us. This rule covers every transgression of God's 
law and all unchristian conduct. 

Synod of 1888 ruled that in case parents refuse to send their 
children to the catechism classes they shall be admonished, and if 
need be, disciplined to excommunication. There are good reasons for 
this ruling. Anyone who fails to instruct his children in God’s Word 
or refuses to have them instructed through the appointed channels of 
the Church thereby repudiates his profession of Christianity and is 
guilty of ungodly conduct. Such should be admonished and disciplined. 

4. The purpose of ecclesiastical discipline. 

The purpose of discipline according to Article 71 is two-fold: 

“To reconcile the sinner with the Church and his neighbors and to 
remove the offense out of the Church of Christ.” By “offense” the 
article means not merely what may hurt the feelings of others, but 
that which may cause others to sin, that over which others may stum- 
ble and fall, as the word used by Christ definitely signifies in the 
Greek language. 

This purpose for Church discipline as indicated in Article 71 accords 
fully with the Bible. (Cf. I Cor. 5; II Cor. 2:7; II Thess. 3:14.) 

Calvin mentions a three-fold purpose for Church discipline: 1) That 
the name of God may not be blasphemed by the world. 2) To safe- 
guard the loyal members of the Church against the bad influence of 
the unfaithful. 3) To move the sinner to shame and repentance. 

a Lasco, Voetius, and Rutgers all agree essentially with the pur- 
pose of discipline as stated by Calvin, though a Lasco mentions but 
two aims, just as our Church Order does, and though Voetius speaks 
of a sevenfold purpose, while Dr. Rutgers mentions the three which 


300 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Calvin already set forth, although Rutgers gives these three purposes 
in the reverse order from Calvin. Calvin’s order is certainly the 
logical one, whereas Rutger’s order is more the psychological and 
practical one. 


ARTICLE LXXII. 

In case any one errs in doctrine or offends in conduct as long 
as the sin is of a private character , not awing public offense , 
the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18 shall be fol- 
lowed . 

CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE AND THE RULE FOR 
PRIVATE OFFENSES 

The two matters covered by Article 72 are indicated above. We first 
speak of the causes for discipline which Article 72 recognizes and 
shall then consider the rule which is to be followed regarding private 
sins. 

1. Causes for discipline: 

Causes for discipline are two-fold in character according to the con- 
viction of our Churches expressed in Article 72. We read: “In case 
any one errs in doctrine or offends in conduct . . .” Errors in doctrine 
or life shall constitute cause for discipline, so our Churches have 
agreed by accepting the present article. Offenses in doctrine and life 
have been considered Biblical causes for discipline by the Reformed 
Churches since the days of the Reformation. This appears not only 
from the various synodical decisions regarding discipline, but also 
from the answer to the 85th question of the Heidelberg Catechism 
which states that Christian discipline is to be applied to those who 
“maintain doctrines or practices” inconsistent with Christianity. This 
same reply also speaks of those who refuse to “renounce their errors 
and wicked course of life.” 

As to early conclusion regarding just grounds for discinline the 
Wezelian Convention of Reformed Churches, 1568, decided that one 
who advocated strange teachings and heresies, secretly or publicly, 
should be disciplined, (Chap. VIII, 7) and also that one who led an 
evil life should be censured. (Chap. VIII, 9.) The first regular Synod, 
Emden, 1571, maintained these two causes for discipline (Art. 26). 
Following Synods have maintained in substance what this first Synod 
adopted. We still find these selfsame grounds in Article 72 of the 
Church Order. 

This position of our Church Order is certainly in keeping with Holy 
Writ. Doctrinal errors, worthy of discipline do not include, according 
to the Bible, such matters as the abstention from certain foods or the 
keeping of certain special days. (Rom. 14.) But it does include false 
prophesyings or teachings (Matt. 7:15, 2-23; Acts 20: 28-30; Gal. 
1: 8,9); the raising up of discord and occasion for sin (Rom. 16:17, 
18); the denial of the resurrection from the dead (I Cor. 15:12-17; 
II Tim. 2:16-18 and I Tim. 1:18-20); denial of Christ’s Sonship and 
His incarnation (I John 2:22; 4:2,3; II John 7-11). 

But Scripture also condemns ungodly conduct, excluding those who 
persist in such sins from heaven and enjoining the Churches to dbs- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


301 


cipline them. For example: the lying of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 
6:1-11); the simony of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:18-24); the sin of 
incest in Corinth’s Church (I Cor. 5:1-5,13); and furthermore all 
kinds of extreme sins and immorality as adultery, theft, covetousness, 
drunkenness, false testimony, etc. (I Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 
5:3-5; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8). 

When does error in doctrine or life merit discipline? When the 
sin of the transgressor gives offense, i.e., when a sin tends to lead 
others into sin, and when the guilty party rejects the admonition 
offered and persists in his sin. Not every sin and error in doctrine 
and life calls for discipline in the formal sense of that word. We are 
all imperfect. We all sin with word and deed, in doctrine and life. 
These sins should be exposed and condemned in the preaching of 
God’s Word and we should all be admonished by each other as believ- 
ers, and particularly by the office-bearers as overseers at the time 
of home-visitation or at special occasions. But discipline in the formal 
sense is not initiated unless the matter is serious and offensive, and 
unless the sinner refuses to repent and change, as we have indicated. 

2. When does the rule of Matt. 18 apply? 

The Reformed Churches answer (cf. the present article) . . as 
long as the sin is of a private character, not giving public offense, 
the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18 shall be followed.” 

This provision has been incorporated in the Church Order from the 
very outset. True, the Wezelian Convention applied this rule only to 
errors in life, and not to errors in doctrine*. If one became erroneous 
in doctrine his sin had to be reported to the Church forthwith. But 
the Synod of Emden, 1571, only three years later, made the rule of 
Matt. 18 applicable to transgressors regarding the doctrines of Holy 
Writ, as well as to transgressors regarding Christian life. 

The Churches at that time held that in Matt. 18 Christ was refer- 
ring to errors in doctrine as well as to personal offenses or unchris- 
tian conduct. Present day reliable commentators agree that Christ 
referred only to unchristian conduct of one toward another. But the 
example and instruction which Christ gives us in Matt. 18 regarding 
personal offenses which are not generally known, and as such may 
be termed secret sins, that example and instruction may certainly be 
applied to all kinds of private sins, including those that are doctrinal 
in character. Sins that are not generally known should not be revealed 
unless the nature of the transgression should require such, (for ex- 
ample: theft, murder, etc., being crimes against the civil institutions) 
or that the impenitence of the transgressor should require such. 
“Love beareth (covereth) all things. (I Cor. 13:7, cf. margin, A.R.V.) 
“Love covereth a multitude of sins.” (I Peter 4:8.) It is our duty 
and privilege to seek the erring brother’s conversion from his sin. 
For “he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save 
a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” (James 
5:19, 20.) 

Even though one therefore should hold that Matt. 18 speaks only 
of personal offenses, yet it should be evident that we must distinguish 
between secret and public sins. Secret sins then are sins known only 
to one or to a few persons, to a limited number, and which sins have 
consequently not given general offense. 

Matt. 18 states very plainly how one is to deal with a brother who 
has committed a sin which is still secret. The brother against whom 
the sin has been committed is to go to the transgressor and show 
him his fault privately. This injunction of our Lord in no wise re- 


302 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


lieves the guilty party from going to the offended brother in order 
to confess his wrong. Not at all (cf. Matt. 5:23,24). The transgres- 
sor should do so. But the offended brother should not wait until the 
offender calls on him, but he must go to the transgressor and en- 
deavor to convince him of his wrong in order to save him from his 
sin and ruin. For: “if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother,” 
i.e., for the kingdom of heaven. If that end be reached, the whole 
matter is thereby concluded. 

If the guilty party refuses to admit his guilt and to make amends 
if necessary and possible, then the rule of Matt. 18 requires that the 
offended brother repeat his visit taking one or two witnesses with 
him. These witnesses should be reliable Christians, themselves of 
good repute. As a rule it will be advisable to choose the witnesses 
from the same Church to which the erring brother belongs. One or 
two witnesses are to be present so that “at the mouth of two wit- 
nesses or three every word be established.” Statements made by the 
erring brother may have to be verified before the Consistory. 

If the sinner does not yet repent and consequently a third admoni- 
tion becomes necessary, then, “it must be told unto the church.” 
Jesus is here seemingly thinking of the little group of followers who 
believed on Him and who would eventually form the nucleus of the 
New Testament Church. If a sinner will not repent, the aggrieved 
party will report the error and plight of the transgressor to the 
Church so that the whole Church, particularly through its office- 
bearers as representative of Christ Himself, may labor with the erring 
one for his return. 

(It may be noted that Christ here assigns the work of discipline 
to the particular Church. There is where ecclesiastical discipline con- 
sequently belongs essentially.) 

After all admonitions prove to be futile the sinner should be re- 
garded by the Church as “a Gentile and a publican.” That is to say: 
one that is outside of the Church of Christ and the kingdom of God. 


ARTICLE LXXIII. 

Secret sins of which the sinner repents , after being admon- 
ished by one person in private or in the presence of two or three 
witnesses , shall not be laid before the Consistory. 

SECRET SINS REPENTED 

This 73rd article of our Church Order was originally adopted by 
the first Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, that of Emden, 
1571. In Article 27 of the Church Order of this Synod we find literally 
the provision of our present Article 73. But in addition the Synod 
of Emden also ruled that secret sins, though repented of, which con- 
stitute great danger to State or Church such as treason, or the mis- 
leading of souls, (als daar zyn Verraderije, ofte verleydinge der 
zielen) should be reported to the Minister of the Church, so that, his 
advice having been gained, one might know what to do. 

Seven years later the Synod of Dort, 1578, dropped this second pro- 
vision of the present article and maintained only the first provision. 
Thus the article reads today. Common sense, however, still tells us 
that in case a brother or sister has committed a very grievous and 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


303 


dangerous sin, that then it may be to his own best interest and the 
safety of others, that at least his Minister be informed. In such ex- 
treme cases the matter should be reported confidentially, and in some 
cases if possible with the transgressor’s consent. 

1. The duty of individual Christians regarding discipline. 

Article 73 is a direct continuation of Article 72 which article pre- 
scribed that the rule of Matt. 18 should be put into practice when 
private or secret sins were committed. We need not repeat what has 
already been said as we considered Article 72. 

But it is well to note why the Church Order demands, also in this 
article, that discipline should begin with the believers as individuals 
and not with the Consistory. In the first place, this is the rule be- 
cause Christ so ordained in unmistakable words in Matt. 18 as we 
have seen. Secondly, many passages in the Bible prescribe mutual 
discipline. I Thess. 5:11: “Wherefore exhort one another, and build 
each other up, even as also ye do.” Heb. 3:12, 13: “Take heed, breth- 
ren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of un- 
belief, in falling away from the living God: but exhort one another 
day by day, so long as it is called To-day. . .” Rom. 15:14: “And I 
myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves 
are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish 
one another.” This mutual exhortation, urged upon us by Holy Writ, 
becomes mutual discipline when there is a specific transgression. Gal. 
6:1, “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who 
are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to 
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” James 5:19,20, “My brethren, if 
any among you err from the truth and one convert him; let him know, 
that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save 
a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” 

Furthermore it may be remarked that Scripture enjoins mutual dis- 
cipline since all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit, sharing 
the anointing of Christ, to be prophets, priests, and kings under Him. 
(Cf. I Peter 2:9 and also Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 32.) We rightly 
speak of all believers as office-bearers, as our fathers spoke of “het 
ambt aller geloovigen.” 

New Testament believers particularly should not be treated as 
minors which have no voice in matters (Roman Catholicism), but as 
having come to years of majority, having definite rights and duties. 
Official, ecclesiastical admonition and discipline is but the continuation 
of mutual, believer’s discipline. When the latter fails the former be- 
gins to function. And again, when believer’s discipline cannot act 
with a view to the best interests of the individual involved and the 
Church concerned (as in ,the case of public sins) the special offices 
begin to act forthwith and initiate disciplinary action. And when 
Church members refuse to do their Christian duty toward each other 
and no longer admonish each other, but desire to leave it all to the 
Consistory, then the backbone of Church discipline is severely injured. 
Much to the detriment of the Churches concerned, of course. Says 
Dr. F. L. Rutgers: “The decay of discipline, which began already in 
the beginning of the 17th century, should certainly be attributed to 
a large extent to the fact that in the convictions of the church mem- 
bers this principle of our Church Order had been weakened.”* 

Through the preaching of the Word and through personal admoni- 
tion the believers should be urged to maintain this Biblical principle. 


• Collegfe-Voordrachten, etc., 1918, p. 37. 


304 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


It may seem much easier merely to report a matter to the Consistory, 
but personal admonition according to the rule of Matt. 18 should pre- 
cede. Anyone who refuses to do his duty on this score, anyone who 
would refuse persistently to act according to the rule of Matt. 18 
would make himself worthy of discipline. 

2. Can secret and public sins be differentiated? 

It is impossible to differentiate strictly between secret and public 
sins. In general it may be said that sins may be regarded as being 
secret when they have been committed secretly and when subsequently 
the transgression has not become known. A sin committed in secret, 
but not kept secret, is not to be regarded as a secret sin but as a 
public sin. 

Furthermore, in a large Church a sin known to five or six might 
be considered to be secret, whereas in a very small Church this sin 
might be regarded as no longer secret. Circumstances alter cases, 
also regarding this question. As long as a sin is known only to a very 
limited number, the sinner should be labored with accordingly, par- 
ticularly if the matter can be kept secret. If a matter is bound to 
become an “open secret/’ that fact may lead a believer and a Con- 
sistory to regard the matter as a public sin, though as yet the matter 
is known to only some. Those who help spread a matter are cer- 
tainly guilty of a great sin, and should be admonished accordingly. 

A public sin is one which from its very nature is generally known, 
or which had to be made known to the Consistory because the sinner 
refused to repent. Sins committed in public, or in the presence of 
many, or reported in the newspapers, are public and these should be 
reported to the Consistory, or the Consistory should take action even 
though no one comes to report, either from neglect or because it is 
well-known that the Consistory members bear knowledge of the case. 

Jansen reports that the Synod of 1586, ’s Gravenhage, was asked 
to give a distinctive description of secret and public sins. The Synod 
refused to do so. No Synod and no individual can do so, for reasons 
stated above, and because every case has its own peculiar setting. 
Never should we attempt to catalog sins as either secret or public. 
Reformed Church government does not lay down hard and fast rules 
going into great detail, but merely establishes certain leading clearly 
enunciated Biblical principles. This is enough and works for the safety 
of individual believers and their Churches, also in matters of disci- 
pline. 

3. Secret sins, duly repented of, are not to be brought before 
the Consistory. 

Article 73 specifies very definitely that secret sins which have been 
dealt with according to Christ’s rule of Matt. 18 and of which the 
transgressors have repented, shall not be reported to the Consistory. 
This is as it should be. When discipline has reached the end sought, 
discipline ends. Matt. 18 says very plainly: “If he hear thee, thou 
hast gained thy brother.” Only in case the guilty one refuses to re- 
pent does Christ prescribe further action. Secret sin should be kept 
secret unless the obstinacy, the unwillingness of the sinner to admit 
and repent, makes a revelation of the sin committed necessary. 

And he who admonishes a guilty brother should always be anxious 
for a confession, so that the matter may not become public. Never 
should one go through the prescribed course of Matt. 18 and our 
Church Order just to be able to report the matter to the Consistory. 
Good-will, eagerness, and Christian charity should be prominent as 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


306 


we seek to correct and persuade each other. A haughty, superior at- 
titude embitters and divides, and often hardens a sinner in his sin. 
Let those who in the way of God's providence are called upon to ad- 
monish others do so humbly and by all means prayerfully. 


ARTICLE LXXIV. 

If any one, having been admonished in love concerning a se- 
cret sin by two or three persons, does not give heed, or other- 
wise has committed a public sin, the matter shall be reported 
to the Consistory. 

SINS TO BE REPORTED TO CONSISTORY 

1. When sins must be reported to the Consistory. 

The first major gatherings of the Reformed Churches of Holland, 
the Wezelian Convention, concluded that if one stubbornly and re- 
peatedly rejected the brotherly admonitions, his sin should be re- 
ported to the Consistory. Furthermore, sins committed publicly and 
with public offense should be reported to the Consistories. (Cf. Acts 
of Wezel, Chap. 8, Art. 9, 10.) The first Synod, Emden, 1671, unified 
these two articles of Wezel into one (Emden, Art. 38) and wrote 
Article 74 (38) into the Church Order as it now reads, except that 
the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1587, inserted the words “in love.” (Art. 
67, 1586.) Some believers would comply with the letter of Christ’s 
rule of Matt. 18, but not with the spirit. Therefore this last mentioned 
Synod caused the article to read: “If anyone, having been admonished 
in love concerning a secret sin . . .” Article 74 therefore stipulates 
that a secret sin of which the guilty party will not repent after hav- 
ing been admonished according to the rule of Matt. 18, must be 
reported to the Consistory. Likewise that public sins must be reported 
to the Consistory. 

Discipline must be exercised — as noted in our consideration of 
Article 71 — that the name of God may not be blasphemed by the 
world; to safeguard the loyal members of the Church; and to move 
the sinner to shame and repentance. If this three-fold aim has not 
been attained through private admonitions and the labors of believers 
performed according to Matt. 18, then the office-bearers, the over- 
seers of God’s Church, should be notified that they may endeavor to 
accomplish as special servants of Christ what mutual discipline 
failed to accomplish. When labors of love performed by dint of the 
general office of all believers are fruitless, the whole Church through 
its Christ appointed officers must endeavor to correct and save the 
erring one. 

Public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forthwith, not be- 
cause the general office of all believers has no duties to perform in 
such cases, but because of the public offense given, which offense 
must be removed as soon as possible and because the sin is already 
known to many and therefore its immediate revelation to the Con- 
sistory cannot be termed uncharitable. Fellow believers must certain- 
ly show concern when one of their number errs. They should ad- 
monish the erring also in case the sin committed is public. But the 
public offense, the blot upon God’s Church and His sacred name must 
be removed as soon as possible, and that can only be done publicly. 


306 THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

Consequently public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forth- 
with. 

Why are these sins — secret sins not repented of and public sins — 
to be reported to the Consistory? Does not Matt. 18:17 say: “tell it 
unto the church” (margin: Congregation)? Indeed. However, there 
is no conflict between the words of Christ and the words of our 
Church Order. The Church or congregation at the time when Christ 
spoke the words of Matt. 18, was not yet organized. At a later day, 
through the Apostles, Christ ordained Elders in every Church in order 
that these should oversee and govern the Churches. Consequently 
Article 74 specifies that report must be made to the Consistory. The 
Elders represent both Christ and His Church, for Christ functions 
through the Church. It certainly would not do, after Christ has ap- 
pointed rulers in His Churches, to ignore these Christ-appointed lead- 
ers and go to the body of believers directly. Moreover the best 
interest of all concerned demands that the office-bearers be informed 
and that they take all necessary action for the whole congregation. 
If need be, if irrepentance so require, the whole congregation will be 
informed, step by step, so that the whole Church may do its duty 
toward the erring one, praying for him, admonishing him, by giving 
active or passive approval of what the Consistory is doing, etc. And 
thus the whole Church will take action. The office-bearers are the 
organs through which the congregation functions and under whose 
leadership the believers act. 

2. How reports are to be made to Consistories. 

A Consistory need not always wait until a transgression is reported 
to it before taking action. A sin may be so commonly known that 
virtually the whole Consistory bears knowledge of the facts. In such 
a case no one will deem it necessary to make a report to the Con- 
sistory. The Elders can take action upon their own knowledge of facts. 

Furthermore, in case a grievous sin has been committed a sinner 
may come to the Consistory of his own accord to confess, knowing 
perhaps that sooner or later the sin will become public. In such a 
case the Consistory may and must take action, though that action 
may merely be an announcement to the Church that the party in 
question has confessed a certain sin before God and the Consistory. 

Young people, for instance, who transgress the Seventh Command- 
ment with a resultant early marriage and parenthood may and should 
confess their sin before the Consistory of their own accord as soon 
as possible. Their secret sin will soon be generally known, and for 
all concerned an early announcement regarding penitence is desirable. 
Thus there may be other instances in which a sinner desires to con- 
fess his sin unknown to others, before the Consistory. 

He who has labored with an erring brother according to Matt. 18, 
but without success, should go to the Consistory meeting to report the 
case. It is better that the reporter go to the Consistory meeting than 
that he merely gives a message to one or two Consistory members. 
The whole Consistory should hear the facts first hand. 

May one who is not a member of the Church to which one accused 
belongs come with grievances? Most assuredly. We have a duty to- 
ward all our fellow-believers whether they belong to the same local 
Church or not. 

May a Consistory receive a charge against one of its members from 
one who is not Christian Reformed? Certainly, as long as the wit- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


307 


ness is known to be trustworthy, and if he is able and willing to give 
definite information, as to the nature of the sin committed, time, 
place, etc. Should the charge concern a secret sin and the reporter 
be a professing Christian, then of course, the Consistory must make 
sure that the rule of Matt. 18 has been observed. 

Consistories should be very careful not to begin an investigation 
upon the report of an unbeliever who might come with charges against 
a believer. On the other hand, if the unbeliever is known to be reli- 
able in his testimony, no liar, then a charge made even by an unbe- 
liever should be investigated, provided, of course, that the accuser is 
willing and able to give details as to time, place, etc. Guesses and 
suspicions should receive no consideration on the part of the Elders, 
no matter who pleases to present them. 

As a rule unsigned letters containing charges against a member 
should be laid aside and should not even be received for information. 
Nevertheless, though no one has a right to make unsigned charges, 
if the Consistory fears that charges contained in such a letter are 
well-founded and if the matter be serious, then a quiet investigation 
is advisable. Persistent and general rumors may also require quiet 
action on the part of a Consistory in order that the good name of 
an innocent brother be cleared, if he is innocent, or else, that the 
offense be removed and the sinner may be corrected. Those who 
spread false rumors, if they can be located, should be admonished. 
And those who spread rumors founded on fact without following the 
rule of Matt. 18 should likewise be admonished and if need be disci- 
plined. 

3. Regarding investigations by Consistories. 

When a Consistory finds that a certain charge or report requires 
investigation it should do its utmost to carry on the investigation 
impartially. He who is accused must receive ample opportunity to 
defend himself if he denies guilt. He may defend himself in person, 
orally, or by written statement. During the 16th and 17th centuries 
those under suspicion and under charge were even permitted to bring 
someone to talk for them, someone to be his advocate. There can be 
no objections against this practice. There is much in its favor. Some- 
times the accused party has but little ability to state his own case 
clearly. Sometimes those under accusation are too nervous or agi- 
tated to present their cases in a desirable fashion. Therefore as long 
as the representatives of those accused are reliable and sincere Chris- 
tians who aim to give a fair presentation of the facts and who agree 
to abide by the rules of the assembly — Consistory, Classis, or Synod, 
whichever the case may be — then there is no objection. 

As stands to reason the Consistory should hear only trustworthy 
witnesses, being either members in good standing, not under censure 
for dishonesty, or some other trustworthy persons, not belonging to 
the Church. The Consistory should carefully weigh the evidence pre- 
sented and should not reach a hasty conclusion. 

Very seldom should Consistories place people under oath. Our yea, 
should be yea, and our nay, nay. But if urgency require, an oath 
may be taken. The trial should be dignified, conducted prayerfully, 
and absolutely impartial. The procedure should not become overly 
technical. Consistories do not conduct court trials in the civil sense 
of the word. Each case should be investigated not according to cer- 
tain set and highly technical rules, but rather freely, as fairness and 


308 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


sanctified common sense may indicate for every specific case. The 
only purpose of an ecclesiastical investigation is to determine whether 
or not the accused party is guilty of a censurable sin. If an accusa- 
tion proves to be unfounded, the accuser must retract his charge. If 
he persistently refuses to do so, he himself would ultimately become 
an object of discipline. 

If in any case the Consistory cannot come to a definite conclusion, 
the Consistory should refrain from taking any action. If the parties 
involved in a charge in which the Consistory cannot reach a conclu- 
sion flatly contradict each other so that evidently one or the other 
must be lying, then both parties should be admonished very seriously, 
so that he who wilfully and consciously lies may not continue in his 
terrible sin and become hardened in his transgression, but may rather 
confess his fearful sin. 

If guilt cannot be established in a given case, but the evidence 
points in the direction of guilt, then the party should be urged to 
consider matters very prayerfully, telling him also that if at any 
future time his Christian conscience should smite him and accuse him 
of guilt, to come to the Consistory to confess without hesitation and 
without delay. For the rest, Consistories can only place cases that 
cannot be established for or against an accused brother into the hands 
of Him who tries the heart and reipis omnisciently and who will re- 
ward both the innocent and the guilty righteously. 

If the guilt of one accused is established beyond a just doubt, either 
through a confession on the part of one guilty or upon due investi- 
gation, the Consistory proceeds to admonish such a one. 

If repentence follows, then complete reconciliation with the ag- 
grieved parties, and in case of public sins with the whole Church, can 
follow. If, however, the party concerned has sinned repeatedly, or if 
the offense is very grievous, it may be well for both the transgress^ 
and the Church that he be ordered to abstain from using the Sacra- 
ments for the time being. If the guilty party, having confessed his 
guilt and professed repentence, gives proof of his sincerity by a 
Godly walk, he should be fully reinstated in all his rights. If a Con- 
sistory deems it advisable to put a repentant sinner on probation, 
this need not be announced to the Church. His declaration of repent- 
ance may be announced without delay. But the fact that he is not 
as yet to partake of the Sacraments is a matter between the party 
concerned and the Consistory. Only in extreme cases should the 
matter of probation be announced to the congregation. Probation 
period should not last longer than necessary. As soon as one has 
manifested his sincerity by a Godly walk he should be re-admitted 
to all the privileges of the Church. Probation periods were perhaps 
more common in former years than they are now. They should not 
occur often. As a rule the repentant sinner should be received upon 
his testimony in the spirit of Christian love which gladly forgives 
and is eager to believe. Probation periods may range from three or 
six months to two years. We would not advise ever to extend the 
period beyond a two year term. 

If one refuses to repent, censure follows as indicated in succeeding 
articles of the Church Order. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


309 


ARTICLE LXXV. 

The reconciliation of all such sins as are of their nature of a 
public character, or have become public because the admonition 
of the Church was despised, shall take place (upon sufficient 
evidence of repentance) in such a manner as the Consistory 
shall deem conducive to the edification of each Church. Whether 
in particular cases this shall take place in public, shall, when 
there is a difference of opinion about it in the Consistory, be 
considered with the advice of two neighboring Churches or of 
the Classis. 

RECONCILIATION WITH THE CHURCH 

Article 75 as it reads in our Church Order can be tracked back to 
Article 29 of the Church Order of the Synod of Emden, 1571. This 
article provided in substance that reconciliation should not take place 
publicly in the presence of the Church unless the whole Consistory 
agreed that it was advisable. The Synod of 1586 provided that in 
Churches served by only one Minister, no public reconciliation should 
take place, except with the advice of two neighboring Churches (1586, 
Art. 68). The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, left the article as revised in 
1586. Only it now became Article 75, as it is still today. The Synod 
of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 1905, adopted the read- 
ing which we now have, our Synod of 1914 following the lead of the 
Holland Churches, with only this difference: For the Churches in Hol- 
land the article merely provides that the advice of two neighboring 
Churches shall be gained before a Consistory with only one Minister 
is to decide that a certain reconciliation shall take place before the 
Church, whereas our Article 75 reads: “. . . with the advice of two 
neighboring Churches or of the Classis.” 

1. Which cases demand reconciliation with the Church? 

Only those cases in which the sin is public, either from the very 
nature of the transgression, or because the sinner refused to heed the 
admonition of the Consistory so that the Congregation had to be in- 
formed of the transgressor’s sin and failure to repent. 

Sins which are private and which are repented of should not be 
published. The rule of Matt. 18 is very clear on this point. It is also 
possible that a sinner does not repent when he is admonished by one 
or two or more individuals, but that he does repent when the Con- 
sistory begins to labor with him. In such a case reconciliation takes 
place privately, either before the whole Consistory or before a com- 
mittee of the Consistory, depending on the nature of the sin and other 
circumstances. The believers who admonished him according to the 
Saviour’s rule of Matt. 18 should be present at this reconciliation or 
they should be notified that reconciliation has taken place. Here also 
the sin and the circumstances involved should determine the procedure 
to be followed. But under no circumstance should a Consistory begin 
to reveal faults and transgressions of which the Congregation is not 
aware, if the party concerned gives clear proof of repentance. 

But if the sin is known to the Church, because of its very nature, 
or because the Consistory had to announce the transgressor’s sin to 
the Church in the process of discipline, because the guilty party would 
not repent, then, upon repentance the question arises: How must 
reconciliation with the Church take place? And to this question 
Article 75 supplies the answer. 


310 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


2. Conditions for reconciliation. 

Reconciliation of repentant sinners shall take place “upon sufficient 
evidence of repen tance,” Article 75 stipulates. Experience has taught 
the Churches that some people make a confession readily, because it 
is not heartfelt and is made merely to settle a matter externally. 
Often these transgressors fall back into the same sins repeatedly. 
Thus the name of God and His Church is defamed and the offense 
becomes great. Confessions frequently and easily violated undermine 
Church discipline, especially in the mind of the youthful and weak. 
For these reasons, and for the sake of the sinning party Synod of 
1581 added the condition under consideration. This condition requires 
that Consistories do not accept a confession at face value, unless it 
has reasons to believe that the confessor is sincere. In some cases the 
Consistory will have to judge regarding the sincerity of a confession 
not so much by the word uttered or even emotionalism displayed, but 
rather by the walk of life manifested after the transgression occurs 
or after repentance was professed. As stands to reason, no Consis- 
tory should doubt a confessor’s sincerity unless he has given occasion 
for such doubt by past experience, or by his present doubtful attitude. 

In case of extreme sins a Consistory may feel itself bound to with- 
hold the privileges of membership for the time being, especially that 
of partaking of the sacraments, Synod of 1578, Dort, even made a 
provision for this step in the Church Order (see Art. 98, Dort, 1578). 
This article provides that those who have committed grievous sins, 
disgraceful to the Church or also punishable by the State, even though 
they manifest repentance, shall nevertheless be excluded from the 
Lord’s Supper to remove the offense, and to test the genuineness of 
their repentance. This article was left out of the Church Order by 
the next Synod, 1581. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that a Con- 
sistory has the right and duty to exclude a repentant sinner from 
the Sacraments for the time being. This right is also expressed by 
implication in the present article and its provision that reconciliation 
shall take place “upon sufficient evidence of repentance.” See our con- 
cluding remarks regarding this same matter under Article 74. 

3. Should reconciliation take place before the Consistory only, or also 
in the presence of the congregation? 

This question is to be answered by each Consistory for each indi- 
vidual case. But if there is a difference of opinion in the Consistory 
as a case comes up for consideration, so that the Consistory cannot 
reach a unanimous decision, then, so Article 75 stipulates, the matter 
should not be decided by a majority vote, but then the Consistory 
must first gain the advice of two neighboring Churches or of Classis. 
This prescribed advice, as Jansen points out, does not imply that two 
other Consistories or that Classis decides the matter, nor that the 
Consistory concerned merely gains the advice and then decides as it 
sees fit regardless of the advice given. But it means that the respon- 
sible Consistory will take a decision in conformity with the advice 
received. If a Classis meeting is near at hand, the matter can be 
conveniently submitted to Classis. Otherwise two neighboring Con- 
sistories are asked to meet with the Consistory seeking advice, and 
then the three Consistories consider the matter together as one body, 
and seek to arrive at a united stand. However, each Consistory 
should take a separate vote. If the Consistory which seeks the advice 
of two neighboring Consistories can not agree with the choice of these 
Consistories, the matter is presented to Classis for disposition. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


311 


In the Reformed Churches of Holland Consistories which have more 
than one Minister (some have several) decide this matter by majority 
vote. The smaller Churches having only one Minister call for the 
advice of two neighboring Churches. The advice of Classis is not 
mentioned in the present redaction of Article 75 of the Reformed 
Churches of Holland. It may be noted, however, that the Synod of 
Middelburg, 1581, stipulated that public reconciliations should take 
place with the advice of Classis. (Art. 63, 1581.) 

Article 75 does not specify when reconciliation shall be before the 
Consistory and when before the Church also. Instances and examples 
are not given either. Every case must be judged in its own setting 
and upon its own merits or demerits. In general Consistories should 
be guided by considerations as these: Which form of reconciliation 
(public or private) will glorify God most? Which is best for the 
Church? Which form is best for the repentant sinner? Consistories 
should not give needless publicity to sins committed through confes- 
sions or reconciliations before the whole Church in public meeting. 
Neither should the Consistory permit the name of a repentant sinner 
to be dishonored before men, if this can be avoided. On the other hand, 
offensive sins greatly dishonoring God’s name and the Church of 
Christ should be confessed openly and personally so that all may see 
and know that repentance has taken place and so that the offense 
may be removed the more effectively. A public reconciliation is very 
often the best also for the sinner concerned. It tends to remove bar- 
riers which otherwise may linger. 

There is no special Form for the reconciliation of which Article 75 
speaks, neither for a reconciliation before the Consistory, nor for a 
reconciliation before the whole Church. The manner of reconciliation 
is left entirely to the Consistory. It must consider, also regarding this 
matter, the welfare of all concerned. If reconciliation is made before 
the Consistory certain definite questions should be answered, and the 
content of these should be included in the announcement to the Church. 
Matters of discipline should, as stands to reason, not be printed on 
bulletins, but announced verbally from the pulpit. Announcement to 
the congregation takes place to remove the offense given, and to 
reconcile the sinner with all his fellow believers. 

When reconciliation is to take place in the midst of the congrega- 
tion, the Consistory should draft a brief statement in which the char- 
acter of the sin committed is mentioned, and in which emphasis is 
placed on the fact of repentance and consequent reconciliation. The 
purpose of this public confession of guilt and profession of repentance 
is reconciliation and reinstatement. Its purpose is not the adminis- 
tration of a final word of rebuke, publicly administered for emphasis’ 
sake. 

Synods of 1908 and 1930 ruled that: “In case of transgression of 
the Seventh Commandment before marriage, the form of confession 
is left to the Consistory, provided the confession is made (at least) 
before the whole Consistory. The advisability of announcement of 
the names to the congregation shall be determined by the Consistory 
in each case.” (Cf. Stuart and Hoeksema’s Church Order edition, un- 
der Art. 75.) 

It may be questioned whether it is wise to single out a special sin, 
as the one referred to, and to make a special rule for it. It is apt to 
create the impression that this is the sin par excellence. The only 
justification for special rules of this kind can be that the sins in ques- 
tion are very prevalent and on the increase. Reconciliation in public 
or by a special announcement will emphasize the gravity of the sin 


312 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


and will help to put others on their guard. But why not use, in de- 
cisions of this kind, the term of the Church Order, i.e., “reconcilia- 
tion" which expresses the essence of that which has or is taking place 
both carefully and beautifully? 

Supposing one who is being admonished and censured moves and 
becomes a member of another of our Churches, which Consistory 
should then complete the reconciliation, revoking the suspension, etc.? 
The Consistory of his new Church. By this Church he has been re- 
ceived as a censured and erring member and the new Consistory al- 
ways continues the process of censure where the former Consistory 
left off. But our confederation, our bonds of Church unity, would re- 
quire that the former Consistory, which initiated censure be recog- 
nized and be asked for their approval, for they may know the case 
far better than the new Consistory. In case of extreme sins generally 
known it is advisable, both for the Church and for the sinner, that 
announcement of the transgressor’s repentance be made to the former 
Church also. When serious differences of opinion arise between two 
Consistories in cases as suggested, the advice of Classis should be 
sought. 


ARTICLE LXXVI. 

Such as obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory, 
and likewise those who have committed a public or otherwise 
aross sin, shall be suspended from the Lord's Supper. And if he, 
having been suspended, after repeated admonitions, shows no 
signs of repentance, the Consistory shall at last proceed to the 
extreme remedy, namely excommunication, agreeably to the form 
adopted for that purpose according to the Word of God. But no 
one shall be excommunicated except with consent of Classis. 

SUSPENSION FROM THE LORD’S SUPPER 

This article concerns temporary suspension or debarment from the 
Lord’s Supper. Suspension from the Lord’s Table as a disciplinary 
measure has been practiced by the Reformed Churches from the very 
beginning. In Geneva, under Calvin’s leadership it was in force. The 
Reformed Churches of France, of Germany, Scotland, and the Nether- 
lands all adopted temporary suspensions as provided for in Calvin’s 
Church Order.* 

The essence of our present Article 76 may be found in the Church 
Order of Emden, 1671. Later Synods made additions, but no essential 
changes. 

1. Cases which require suspension from the Lord’s Table. 

The Synod of Emden, 1571, merely mentioned, “Such as obstinately 
reject the admonition of the Consistory.” (Emden, Art. 30.) The 
Synod of Middelburg, 1581, added, “and likewise those who have com- 
mitted a public or otherwise gross sin.” (Middelburg, Art. 62.) 

The first instance refers to such as have rejected the admonition 
of mutual or believers discipline according to Matt. 18. When these 
private admonitions remain fruitless the Consistory is notified. (Cf. 


• Dr. F. L. Rutgera, Oollege-Voordraclxten, 1918, p. 52. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


313 


our discussion of Art. 74.) The Consistory first of all investigates 
to see if the claims lodged against a brother or sister are well-founded. 
If the Consistory finds guilt, it proceeds to admonish the transgressor 
repeatedly. If the sinner takes the admonition of the Consistory to 
heart and repents, ecclesiastical discipline in the stricter, technical 
sense of the word is not necessary. Reconciliation with the aggrieved 
parties takes place, and the matter is ended. But if, at the other hand 
the transgressor obstinately rejects the admonition of the Consistory, 
then he is to be suspended from the Lord’s Supper. Let it be clear 
therefore that only after persistent refusal to heed the admonition 
of the Consistory, discipline technically begins. Obstinate rejection 
of the Consistory’s admonition is not always outspoken and blunt. 
Sometimes the transgressor shows only by his conduct that he refuses 
to heed the admonition given. But anyone who fails to admit his fault 
and he who fails to mend his ways is guilty of obstinate rejection of 
admonition. Now then, if the transgressor clearly manifests this re- 
fusal to repent he is to be suspended from the Lord’s Table. It is 
definitely irrepentance which brings forth suspension, not the sin com- 
mitted. There is forgiveness for every sin, if only that sin is sin- 
cerely repented of with Godly sorrow. Even a murderer ready to die 
in the electric chair can be admitted to the Lord’s Table if he be re- 
pentant. 

The second class which calls for suspension according to the present 
article comprises those that “have committed a public or otherwise 
gross sin.” If a Consistory discovers that one of the members is 
guilty of a serious sin, generally known, or a sin definitely offensive 
and scandalous, it decides forthwith that the transgressor shall not 
partake of the Lord’s Supper until confession has been made, or until 
the Consistory grants him permission to do so after confession has 
been made. 

Sometimes Consistories find it advisable to postpone the celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper because of disturbed relationship in the Congre- 
gation. Trouble may arise which involves several members in trans- 
gressions. No Consistory should determine to postpone the celebra- 
tion of the Lord’s Supper except for weighty reasons. But if condi- 
tions are much disturbed it is permissible and wise to do so. Such a 
postponement is not a disciplinary measure but simply a means to 
prevent desecration of the Lord’s Supper and the slandering of God’s 
name. 

2. The character of suspension according to Art. 76. 

Reformed Church government distinguishes between discipline in 
the sense of admonition, directed to transgressors by fellow believers 
and as individual believers according to Christ’s rule of Matt. 18, or 
by the Consistory in its representative and official capacity, and disci- 
pline in the sense of admonition by the Consistory plus suspension 
of membership rights. 

Discipline in this second sense of the word, discipline in the stricter, 
more technical sense of the word, has two stages according to the 
accepted rules of our Church Order. During the first stage the Con- 
sistory labors with the transgressors and bars him from the Lord’s 
Supper and all membership privileges — but no announcement is made 
to the Congregation; censure is as yet “silent” or secret. (We speak 
of silent censure from the Dutch, stille censure.) This first stage of 
discipline is regulated and indicated in Article 76 now under consid- 
eration. The second stage of discipline is characterized by three dis- 
tinct announcements to the congregation, sometimes called first, sec- 


314 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ond, and third steps of censure, from the Dutch “eerste, tweede, en 
derde trap van censure.” This second stage of discipline is indicated 
and regulated in Article 77, the article which we shall consider next. 

The first stage of ecclesiastical discipline (Art. 76), silent censure, 
is a temporary suspension from the Lord’s Table. The second stage 
of ecclesiastical discipline is, as to its character, a definite suspension 
from the Lord’s Table. As will be understood, the process may be 
halted at any time by sincere repentance on the part of the transgres- 
sor. In such a case excommunication does not take place. The stage 
of discipline provided for in Article 76 has also been called minor ex- 
communication from the Latin excommunicatio minor. This excom- 
munication is minor inasmuch as it deprives one temporarily of the 
exercise of his membership rights, not of the rights as such. The 
second stage of discipline, regulated in Article 77 is then designated 
as major excommunication, from the Latin excommunicatio major. 
This excommunication is major inasmuch as it deprives one of his 
membership rights and that definitely. 

The suspension from the Lord’s Supper provided for in Article 76 
is therefore disciplinary in character. Sometimes members are kept 
from the Lord’s Table although they are not (as yet) objects of 
Church discipline in the stricter sense of the word. For example, a 
member may have made himself guilty of a grievous sin, known to 
many, concerning which he repents just before the Lord’s Supper. 
Then to avoid offense, the Consistory may bar the brother concerned 
from the Lord’s Table for that celebration. 

So also an involved and serious case of discipline may come to a 
favorable conclusion through repentance by the guilty one, just be- 
fore the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated. Either because the offense 
cannot be removed instantly, in a short space of time, or because some 
details must still be worked out, the Consistory may see fit to tell 
the party concerned not to come to the Lord’s Supper about to be 
celebrated. Or again, a case of discipline may present itself just pre- 
vious to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The Consistory cannot 
fully investigate the case before the time of celebration but evidence 
points definitely to guilt. In such a case the Consistory may tell the 
party in question to refrain from coming to the Lord’s Table at the 
communion service nigh at hand. In Dutch this suspension has been 
termed “eenvoudige afhouding” or “voorloopige afhouding.” We would 
use the term “simple suspension” or “simple debarment.” The latter 
term has this in its favor that it is less likely to be confused with 
regular, disciplinary suspension. 

Sometimes a Consistory merely advises a member to refrain from 
going to the Lord’s Table for a particular celebration nigh at hand. 
This is sometimes done if one is at least to some extent guilty of a 
minor transgression. The matter does not seem to warrant suspension 
but partaking of the Lord’s Supper may offend some. Or, a slight 
misunderstanding may arise between two communicants so that 
fraternal relationships are disrupted somewhat. Accusations are made 
but the whole thing is vague so that the Consistory does not know 
where the guilt lies inasfar as there is guilt. If then the celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper be nigh at hand, the Consistory may advise 
both parties to refrain from going to the Lord’s Table. Let it be well 
understood, in these latter cases the Consistory merely advises. The 
parties concerned may celebrate the Supper if they so desire. 

Voluntary refrainment is also possible. A member may refrain 
from coming to the Lord’s Table entirely of his own accord for rea- 
sons of his own. He may have committed a sin known to him and a 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


315 


small number of others. He may have repented but he may not have 
had time to rectify matters inasfar as such is possible. In such a 
case he may withhold himself from partaking, although no one has 
urged him to do so. Two or more members between whom an un- 
Christian spirit has arisen may also agree mutually to refrain from 
going to the Lord’s Table until matters have been set right. 

3. Course to be followed when suspension and admonitions fail to 
bring repentance. 

If suspension from the Lord’s Supper and the admonitions of the 
Consistory are heeded so that repentance follows, discipline ceases and 
reconciliation takes place. But Article 76 tells us what should be done 
if the sinner persists in his obstinate rejection of all admonition, even 
after membership rights have been suspended. If one refuses to re- 
pent even after he has been barred from the Lord’s Table, etc., then 
the Consistory continues to admonish him. How often should the Con- 
sistory admonish? No figures are given. Each case should be dealt 
with according to its own requirements. The Church Order does pre- 
scribe “repeated admonitions.” This is as it should be. The trans- 
gressor must be warned until the very last. But if all admonitions, 
those directed before suspension, during or with the suspension, and 
those addressed to the erring one after suspension do not avail, then 
the Consistory shall at last proceed to the “extreme remedy.” This 
extreme remedy is definite suspension of all membership rights, or 
final and complete excommunication. This excommunication is the 
“extreme remedy.” Even by this extreme act the Church hopes to 
bring about repentance. It desires to save the sinner throughout. 

For this excommunication the Churches are to use the “Form 
adopted for that purpose.” This Form may be found in our Psalter 
Hymnals, appended pages 95, 96. This Form was adopted for the first 
time by the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586. 

Excommunication by this Form does not occur very often in our 
Churches. Why not ? Are there no deflections ? Are there no members 
who by their sins and their refusal to repent make themselves worthy 
of excommunication? The Form is seldom used because members un- 
der discipline who obstinately refuse to repent as a rule break with 
the Church and thus avoid excommunication. But a word of warning 
should be spoken in this connection. Synod of 1918, Article 53, de- 
cided as follows: 

“Synod, considering that the withdrawal from discipline, to which 
one has freely subjected himself, and the breaking off of the fellow- 
ship with the Church to which one belongs, for reasons which cannot 
stand the test of God’s Word, is a sin which should not be esteemed 
lightly, and that those who do so should be supplicated continuously 
and earnestly that they return from their erroneous way, and that 
these should not be released hastily; but (considering) also that one’s 
affiliation with the Church as an organization as well as one’s con- 
tinuation in the organized Church, should remain to be, according to 
Church governmental principles, an act of each one’s own personal 
choice, (therefore Synod) judges that no one can continue to be an 
object of Church discipline if he persists in resigning his membership.” 
(Translated.) 

We have no fault to find with this stand of Synod as to its essential 
principles. But we do believe that many Consistories accepted “resig- 
nation” too easily. We are therefore happy that the Synod of 1936 
expressed itself on this matter as it did and adopted the following: 

“In such announcements (announcements regarding those that have 


316 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


broken with the Church) it should be plainly stated that the person 
who resigned his membership in the manner indicated in the decision 
of 1918, by that very act has committed a grievous sin and that he 
obstinately refuses to listen to the admonition of the Consistory, 
though admonished repeatedly and seriously not to commit this sin. 
It stands to reason the expressions like ‘accepting the resignation* 
should not be used in the announcement, because the full responsibility 
for his sinful act must remain with the person who withdraws himself 
from the Church.” (Acts of Synod, 1936, p. 121.) 

It is true that membership in the organized Church can never be 
forced and should remain to be the result of voluntary acts on the 
part of all its members. But it is also true that the members at the 
time of their confession of faith solemnly promised to be true to the 
Church and to submit themselves to church discipline if discipline 
should become necessary. Resigning one’s membership is a very griev- 
ous sin, and a Consistory should proceed with censuring such a one 
unless he determinated persists in breaking his relationship with the 
Church. Very often we fear Consistories have accepted resignations 
rather quickly in order to be free from the sad duty of excommuni- 
cating the party in question. This should never be done. Discipline 
must ever run its full course unless the object of discipline makes it 
impossible. Then the full responsibility will also rest on his shoulders. 
And, Consistories should so labor with resigning members that they 
can truthfully announce to the Churches that the utmost has been 
done to restrain the member in question from taking this step and 
that the responsibility is his. 

Article 76 also provides that “no one shall be excommunicated ex- 
cept with consent of the Classis.” Article 77 tells us just how and 
when this advice of Classis is to be sought. 

Every Church and Consistory has a right to exercise discipline. 
There are no office-bearers possessing a higher degree of authority 
than those of every particular Church. Intrinsically, essentially every 
Church has a right to govern itself. But the Churches have agreed as 
a matter of wisdom and safety that no Church should act in certain 
matters without and against the advice of the other Churches, espe- 
cially in matters of discipline, partiality and ill-will may assert itself. 
Besides, many cases are involved and difficult. Consequently the ad- 
vice of neighboring Churches through Classis is highly desirable. No 
one can be excommunicated except with the advice, i.e., in harmony 
with the advice of Classis. Only if a Consistory is fully persuaded 
that the advice of Classis is contrary to the Word of God or our 
Church Order, (our basis of co-operation and union) may it refrain 
from deciding in harmony with the advice of Classis. Then the Con- 
sistory, of course, submits the case to Synod. 

This request for advice is therefore not an appeal. Classis does not 
sit as a court of appeal which tries the case for itself. It only checks 
upon the work and decisions of the Consistory and advises it accord- 
ing to its judgment. 

In case the censured party should appeal to Classis, declaring that 
the Consistory and Classis are mistaken, then the Classis investigates 
as far as is necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion. In such a case 
Classis is not bound by its own previous advice. 


317 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

ARTICLE LXXVII. 

After the suspenstoii from the Lord's Table, and subsequent 
admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication, the 
obstinacy of the sinner shall be publicly made known to the 
congregation, the offense explained, together with the care 
bestoiued upon him, in reproof, suspension from the Lord's 
iyupper, and repeated admonition , and the congregation shall 
be exhorted to speak to him and to pray for him. There shall 
be three \such admonitions. In the first the name of the sinner 
shall not be mentioned that he be somewhat spared. In the 
second, with the consent of the Classis, his name shall be men- 
tioned. In the third the congregation shall be informed that 
(unless he repent) he will be excluded from the fellowship of 
the Church, so that his excommunication, in case he remains 
obstinate, may take place with the tacit approbation of the 
Church. The interval between the admonitions shall be left to 
the discretion of the Consistory . 

THE EXCOMMUNICATION 

As noted above, Article 76 concerns the first stage of ecclesiastical 
discipline. Article 77 concerns the second stage, i.e., the final and 
definite suspension of all membership rights, also called excommuni- 
cation. Article 77 has often been misinterpreted. Many have thought 
that the first step of excommunication according to Article 77 was 
identical with the disciplinary provisions of Article 76. These thought 
that the first step of public censure was really the same as the silent 
censure of Article 76. This, however, is not the case. The suspension 
from the Lord’s Table mentioned in Article 76 is not to be confused 
with the first admonition or first step of Article 77. Article 76 tells 
us that when a sinner refuse to repent, “the Consistory shall at last 
proceed to the extreme remedy, namely, excommunication.” Now 
Article 77 tells us how the Consistory must proceed in applying this 
extreme remedy. 

To prevent confusion the Holland Synod of 1906, and our own Synod 
of 1914, changed the reading of Article 77 somewhat. The article used 
to begin as follows: “Before proceeding to excommunication. . 
Now we read: “After the suspension from the Lord’s Table, and sub- 
sequent admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication. . .” 
The added words refer to the provisions of Article 76. 

1. The course of discipline from the point of silent censure to ex- 
communication. 

Article 77 provides first of all that a brief account of the case a t 
hand shall be given to the congregation whenever a Consistory feels 
that it must proceed with discipline. This brief account must include 
a statement of the offense committed. This statement should be 
couched in general terms, and should not go into details. If possible 
the offense should be announced as a sin against one of the Ten Com- 
mandments. Thus one guilty of appropriating money unto himself 
through falsification of books would be said to be guilty of a sin 
against the Eighth Commandment. The announcement must also in- 
clude mention of the “care bestowed upon him, in reproof, suspension 
from the Lord's Supper, and repeated admonition.” The Consistory 
should therefore point out that reproof was given before suspension 
from the Lord’s Supper was resorted to; that subsequently the trans- 


318 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


gressor was suspended from the Lord’s Table; and that afterwards 
the Consistory had still admonished him several times. From all this 
“the obstinacy of the sinner” must be clear to the Church. Obstinacy, 
refusal to convert himself and to repent, calls for discipline, not the 
sin as such. Finally, the congregation is to be exhorted “to speak to 
the guilty one, and to pray for him.” 

The congregation cannot be urged to speak to the transgressor 
until his name is announced to the Church. This takes place if, after 
the first step of censure, the sinner persists in his sin. But the con- 
gregation can pray for an erring and unrepentant member even 
though his name is not known. The reference here is not to congre- 
gational prayers which are part of our Sunday services but to our 
personal prayers. These prayers are often neglected. This is a griev- 
ous sin. The congregation should be much concerned when one errs 
in doctrine or life. When one member suffers, all should suffer. And 
the congregation should feel that the matter of discipline is its con- 
cern, and not that of the Consistory merely. 

The first section of Article 77 provides for exhortations to the con- 
gregation regarding one worthy of discipline. Next, Article 77 tells 
us how many of such exhortations or admonitions there should be. 
We read: “There shall be three such admonitions.” These three ad- 
monitions, as noted above, are often called three steps. It may be 
noted here that these three admonitions are not addressed to the 
transgressor but to the Church. The transgressor is admonished, 
much oftener than three times. He is urged to repent repeatedly. 
But the Church should be urged to labor with and for the erring one 
at least three distinct times. Concerning the first admonition or step 
we read: “In the first the name of the sinner shall not be mentioned 
that he be somewhat spared.” The congregation is informed regard- 
ing the sin committed and the labors bestowed on the erring one, etc., 
as we have just seen. But, at the first occasion of announcement and 
admonition, the name of the transgressor is not mentioned. The 
congregation is only admonished in this first announcement to pray 
for the erring one. This admonition should be written out, approved 
by the Consistory and thus read to the Church. Extemporaneous an- 
nouncements may involve a Church in difficulties. The party con- 
cerned may appeal his case to Classis or Synod, and then all parties 
involved should know exactly what has been said. Moreover, the ad- 
monition must be the conviction not merely of the Minister making 
the announcement, but the conviction of the Consistory. The state- 
ment must be strictly accurate and objective. As the first section 
of Article 77 demands, this announcement should indicate (a) the 
nature of the sin committed, (b) the obstinacy of the sinner, (c) the 
diligence of the Consistory in admonishing the party concerned and 
in suspending him from the Lord’s Supper and in admonishing him 
still further, (d) and finally the admonition to the Church to pray 
for the transgressor. 

Concerning the second admonition to the Church we read: “In the 
second, with consent of the Classis, his name shall be mentioned.” 
The second admonition is a repetition of the first with this difference, 
that in the second admonition the name of the sinner is mentioned 
and the announcement is made with the advice of Classis. In the 
first admonition the name of the transgressor was not mentioned in 
order that he be somewhat spared. In the second his name is men- 
tioned so that the congregation may speak to him, and in the hope 
that this fact may help him to see the urgency of his situation. A 
member’s good name and reputation must be protected, but not at 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


319 


the expense of his own true welfare. The advice of Classis is required 
as a safeguard against partiality, and in the interest of strict right- 
eousness. Moreover, classical advice is invaluable for Consistories not 
so well acquainted with the proper procedure in Church discipline. 
Concerning the phrase “with the consent of the Classis,” it should 
be remarked that our Synod of 1920 would have done better to trans- 
late “with the advice of the Classis.” Throughout, the Church Order 
speaks of “advice,” and the official Dutch text from which we derived 
our translation does not read “met toestemming der Classe,” but, 
“met advies der Classe.” Our present translation is clearly a mis- 
take, which was overlooked by the Synod of 1920. 

“With the advice of Classis (Latin ex classis judicio, i.e., according 
to the judgment of Classis) so Jansen emphasizes correctly,* does 
not mean : with the permission of Classis, for that would conflict with 
the fact that each Church is essentially a self-governing body under 
Christ, and that there is no superior authority which can dictate to 
the particular Church above the Consistory in the strict sense of the 
word. Neither does the expression: with the advice of Classis mean: 
after Classis has been consulted. In that case the Consistory could 
ask for advice formally and then do as it saw fit. The expression 
means: according, or in harmony with, the advice of Classis. This is 
one of the matters in which the individual Churches have agreed not 
to follow their own judgment independently of the other Churches, but 
to follow the judgment of all the other Churches meeting as Classis 
for mutual deliberation and counsel. ** The particular Churches, 
united in federative bonds according to their intrinsic unity in Christ 
and the injunctions and examples of Holy Writ, have agreed to abide 
by the opinion of the majority unless to the mind of the Church or 
Consistory concerned the opinion of the majority is clearly a violation 
of God’s Word and our basis of union. In that case the way of pro- 
test and appeal is open, and ultimately, if need be, acquiesence under 
protest, or if the voice of conscience will not permit this, separation. 

Before a Classis can express its opinion in a given case, it must 
ascertain: (a) whether the sin is censurable, (b) whether the admoni- 
tions and the suspension from the Lord’s Table according to Article 
76 have taken place; (c) whether the first admonition to the Church 
has been properly made; (d) whether the Consistory has labored suf- 
ficiently with the erring member after the first announcement to the 
Church; (e) whether it is clear that the transgressor is and remains 
obstinate in his rejection of all admonitions. 

If the Classis advises to proceed and to make the second admonition 
to the Church, then the Consistory should approve of the announce- 
ment to be made to the congregation. This second admonition, briefly 
stated should mention (a) the character of the sin committed and 
the name of the sinner; (b) the obstinacy of the transgressor also 
after the first admonition to the Church; (c) an exhortation to the 
Church to speak to the erring one, and to pray for him. 

As to the third admonition to the Church we read: “In the third the 
congregation shall be informed that (unless he repent) he will be ex- 
cluded from the fellowship of the Church.” This admonition is the 
last public announcement. In it the Church is informed that the 
transgressor in question has remained obstinate and that he will be 
excommunicated in the near future (the exact date should be men- 
tioned), unless repentance takes place before that time. This last an- 


• Cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring-, etc., 1923, p. 336. 

*• Cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkreckt, II. 1934, p. 637. 


320 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


nouncement is also called an admonition. The Church is once more 
admonished to labor with the transgressor and to pray for him. At 
least three or four weeks should elapse between the last admonition 
and the actual excommunication in order that the transgressor may 
have ample time for prayer and reflection before he is actually ex- 
communicated and in order that he may have opportunity to appeal 
his case if he so desire. 

Should Classis be asked for advice once more before this third ad- 
monition, before this third step is taken and excommunication takes 
place? Usually this is not done. Jansen favors it, inasmuch as 
Article 76 says: “But no one shall be excommunicated except with 
consent of the Classis.” However, it may be maintained successfully, 
we believe, that this provision is fully met by the advice secured from 
Classis before the second admonition to the Church is made. If a 
certain Consistory desires the advice of Classis once more, before it 
proceeds to excommunicate, there can be nothing against this. When 
such advice is sought, it should be given but it cannot be said that 
the Church Order requires Consistories to seek it. 

2. The excommunication proper. 

The excommunication takes place “with the tacit approbation of 
the Church.” That is to say, the third announcement is made to the 
Church also for this reason, that the congregation may give its silent 
approval. The Latin phrase used in the Church Order was “tacitis 
ecclesiae suffrages”, i.e., with the silent vote of the Church. The 
Church must therefore take an active part in the excommunication 
as in all other matters. The Church must approve or disapprove. If 
any member is convinced for sufficient reasons that the Consistory 
is in error or that the Consistory is too hasty, such a member should 
make his objection known to the Consistory. The Consistory should 
carefully weigh the evidence presented and rectify any mistakes that 
may have been made, or postpone the excommunication. If the Con- 
sistory feels that the complaining member has no just grounds for his 
objections then the complainer should receive opportunity to appeal 
the matter to Classis. That is to say, if the complainer desires to 
bring the matter to Classis, the Consistory must not proceed to ex- 
communicate but await the opinion of Classis. If nothing is said re- 
garding an appeal to Classis, and if the Consistory is fully persuaded 
that excommunication should take place at the time announced, then 
the Consistory may proceed. 

The purpose of excommunication is stated in the following words 
in our Form of Excommunication : . to the end that he may hereby 

be made (if possible) ashamed of his sins, and likewise that we 
may not by this rotten and as yet incurable member, put the whole 
body of the Church in danger, and that God’s name may not be 
blasphemed.” 

The implications and the significance of excommunication are stated 
thus: “. . . for the aforesaid reasons we have excommunicated, and 
by these, do excommunicate N. from the Church of God, and from 
fellowship with Christ, and the holy sacraments, and from all the 
spiritual blessings and benefits which God promiseth to and bestows 
upon his Church, so long as he obstinately and impenitently persists 
in his sins, . . .” 

Article 77 finally provides that “The interval between the admoni- 
tions shall be left to the discretion of the Consistory.” This is a 
very wise ruling. There are no two cases exactly alike, and therefore 
each Consistory must decide the question of time, as each case may 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


321 


require. As a rule Consistories should move very carefully and slowly. 
Usually a number of months will elapse between the various admoni- 
tions or steps. Some extreme cases may require speedier action but 
often cases will consume not merely months but years before the final 
excommunication takes place. Not until the Church has put forth 
every means and every effort should the meaningful ban of excom- 
munication be applied. 


ARTICLE LXXVIII. 

Whenever anyone who has been excommunicated desires to 
become reconciled to the Church in the way of penitence , it 
shall be announced to the Congregation , either before the cele- 
bration of the Lord's Supper , or at some other opportune time, 
in order that (inasfar as no one can mention anything against 
him to the contrary) he may with profession of his conversion 
be publicly reinstated, according' to the Form for that purpose. 

RECONCILIATION OF EXCOMMUNICATED 

The Form of Excommunication calls excommunication “the last 
remedy.” One of the reasons for which we apply the ban of excom- 
munication is to save the sinner concerned. After all other means 
have failed the Church hopes and prays that it may please God to use 
this radical and final step in the process of discipline to bring the 
transgressor to heartfelt repentance before God. For this reason the 
Church Order also speaks of excommunication as “the extreme rem- 
edy.” (Article 76.) 

Consequently the Churches ever welcomed repentant sinners, even 
though such sinners may have been excommunicated. At first Con- 
sistories and Classes regulated the reinstatement of banned members 
without a regulating rule in the Church Order and without a Form 
for readmitting excommunicated persons. It was soon found, how- 
ever, that some rule and uniformity was desirable. Synod of ’s Gra- 
venhage, 1586, (Article 71) wrote Article 78 as it reads today into 
our Church Order. 

1. Conditions for reconciliation of the Excommunicated. 

Article 78 mentions two conditions which must be satisfied before 
one banned from the fellowship of the Church and all its privileges 
can be reinstated. First of all, the one excommunicated must desire 
reconciliation. It must not be someone else’s desire to which the 
excommunicated merely assents, but it must be his own request and 
heartfelt desire. Secondly, he must desire reconciliation “in the way 
of penitence.” The sincerity of the desire for reconciliation must be 
proven by penitence. If the banned person does not give a clear testi- 
mony of penitence, or if his conduct gives just, reasons for doubting 
the sincerity of his confession, then the reconciliation should not take 
place until all doubts on this score have been removed. This does not 
mean that the Church must give the applicant for readmission the 
cold shoulder. Not at all. It must labor with him and encourage him. 
And as soon as he can be readmitted without hesitation he must re- 
ceive a hearty welcome. 

It may be said here that if one has broken his relationship with 


322 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


the Church by “resigning,” in spite of all the admonitions of the 
Church, and subsequently desires to be reinstated, that such a one 
should not be readmitted without the same personal desire and sin- 
cere penitence. In many instances such persons should also be read- 
mitted publicly with confession of their guilt. 

2. Due acknowledgement of the congregation. 

The article provides that the desire on the part of one excommuni- 
cated to be readmitted, “shall be announced to the Congregation.” 
Why should the congregation be informed? Article 78 itself gives 
the answer to this question. “In order that (inasfar as no one can 
mention anything against him to the contrary) he may with profes- 
sion of his conversion be publicly reinstated.” The Consistory there- 
fore makes this announcement to the Church, not merely as a matter 
of information, but very definitely to gain its approval. It may be 
said once more that Reformed Church government would regard the 
Church as having certain God-given rights. The believers are not 
minors. They have the anointing of the Holy One, and should be ac- 
knowledged. The offices function for the Church, although upon the 
authority which is Christ-given. 

The announcement is made in order that he who may know of 
reasons why the reconciliation should not take place may report the 
same to the Consistory. Anyone knowing of such reasons must report 
them. This is his Christian duty. If no one raises well-founded ob- 
jections against the contemplated readmittance, then the reconcilia- 
tion takes place with the approval of the whole Church. 

The form for readmission contains an announcement which is to 
be read to the Church some time previous to the date tentatively set 
for the readmission, in which notice is given concerning the excom- 
municated person's request and confession of penitence, and in which 
the believers are charged to notify the Consistory in due time if they 
have anything against the proposed readmission. The time for the 
act of readmission in this first section of the Form is designated as 
“the next time when by the Grace of God we celebrate the Supper 
of the Lord.” 

Supposing the banned person has moved to another locality, then 
can he be readmitted in the Church of his new location? Indeed he 
can. But the rules mutually agreed upon and entered into the Church 
Order should be observed. That is to say, he can only be readmitted 
by means of the Form for readmission. And his former Church in 
which the excommunication took place should be acknowledged. This 
former Church should give its approval. The fact of readmission 
should, as a rule, be announced to the former Church. If the excom- 
municated person lives in the same city or environment in which the 
Church is located which excommunicated him, he should preferably 
be readmitted by this same Church. The Consistory of the former 
Church will, as a rule, know the facts in the case far better than the 
Consistory of the new Church. After his readmission he can then re- 
move to the Church of his new residence. If our Churches maintained 
definite boundary lines, penitents should be readmitted by and in the 
Church of their residence. But since boundaries are ignored and for- 
gotten, readmission in and by the Church in which the transgression 
occurred is proper, though not always necessary. If the former 
Church objects to the readmission of an excommunicated member by 
another Church it should definitely state its reasons. If no agreement 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


323 


can be reached between the two Consistories, the Consistory of the 
former Church should take the matter to Classis, namely the Classis 
of the Church which desires to readmit the excommunicated party. 
The readmission will, of course, not take place while the appeal is 
pending. 

3. The manner of reconciliation of those excommunicated. 

In the consideration of this point we would first of all call attention 
to what appears to be a very faulty translation. Our official Dutch 
text of Article 78 reads, in harmony with the historic reading of this 
article, “. . . in order that (inasfar as no one can mention anything 
against him to the contrary) he may with profession of his conversion 
be publicly reinstated, at the next celebration of the Lord’s Supper 
. . .” (“. . . teneinde hij ten naastkomende Avondmale . . . openbaarlyk 
met professie zyner bekeering weder opgenomen worde. . .”) The 
words “at the next celebration of the Lord’s Supper” have been omit- 
ted from the text, as will be noted. 

Perhaps this omission was occasioned by the fact that the first 
section of Article 78 states, that the announcement regarding the pro- 
posed readmittance may be made “either before the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper, or at some other opportune time.” However, this 
clause merely allows for necessary exceptions to the rule. Which 
rule? That readmittance of excommunicated persons should take 
place just before the Church celebrates the Lord’s Supper. This is 
indeed a very appropriate time for readmitting excommunicated per- 
sons. At the Lord’s Table the Church enjoys one of its most blessed 
privileges here on earth. At the Lord’s Table, moreover, the unity of 
the saints finds beautiful expression. Furthermore, excommunication 
implies an excommunication from all the privileges and blessings of 
the Church of Christ. Foremost of these is admittance to the Lord’s 
Table. Consequently we conclude that this time for reconciling and 
readmitting the excommunicated was well chosen by the men and 
Churches of Reformation days: The words “at the next celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper” should therefore be restored to the article. Only 
urgent reasons should cause us to depart from the historic rule. For 
example, an early removal to a distant locality, the awaiting Baptism 
of a child of the repentant, etc. 

Readmission, according to Article 78, shall take place “according 
to the Form for that purpose.” The reference here is to the Form for 
Readmission (cf. Psalter Hymnal, appended pages 97, 98). This Form 
as well as that for excommunication is simple but rich in content. 
These Forms should be studied for their simplicity and beauty, their 
deep spiritual thought and their significant terminology. Seldom are 
these Forms used. This is in part due to the fact that we are be- 
ginning to weaken in our application of discipline. This is indeed a 
great danger. Many denominations have undergone fearful corrup- 
tion in the space of one or two generations because they weakened 
in their application of discipline. Let us be on the look-out for this 
evil. Let Church Visitors faithfully admonish negligent Consistories, 
and not fail to report obvious neglect to the Classes which they rep- 
resent. 


324 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ARTICLE LXXIX. 

When Ministers of the Divine Word, Elders or Deacons, have 
committed any public, gross sin, which is a disgrace to the 
Church, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities, the Elders 
and Deacons shall immediately by preceding sentence of the 
Consistory thereof and of the nearest Church, be suspended or 
expelled from their office, but the Ministers shall only be sus- 
pended. Whether these shall be entirely deposed from office, 
shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis, with the advice 
of the Delegates of the (Particular) Synod mentioned in 
Article 11. 

CONCERNING CENSURE OF OFFICE-BEARERS 

1. Necessity far censure of office-bearers. 

If an office-bearer makes himself guilty of a public, gross sin, he 
makes himself worthy of discipline not only as an individual member 
of the Church, but also as an office-bearer. If a Consistory finds it 
necessary to censure an office-bearer as an individual member accord- 
ing to the provisions of Articles 76 he should also be censured as an 
office-bearer. The former does not make the latter unnecessary, but 
rather calls for it. No one who has committed a public and gross sin 
should be permitted to go to the Lord’s Table, but neither can such 
a one function as office-bearer until full satisfaction has been given. 

I Tim. 5:19 bids us not to receive an accusation against an Elder 
except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. We should therefore 
be very cautious when Elders (and other office-bearers) are accused. 
But this passage does teach by implication that discipline regarding 
office-bearers has a rightful place in the Church. 

An office-bearer who has made himself guilty of gross public sins 
has wrought disgrace upon the Church and to some extent has for- 
feited his influence. He cannot continue to perform the duties of his 
office uninterruptedly. If the sin is very grievous and offensive he 
should be deposed. If less serious, he must make a hearty confession 
of his sin before he can continue his work and his repentance should 
be announced to the Church. 

Personal discipline as stated does not exempt from discipline as an 
office-bearer. If the former is necessary, the latter is also. But the 
reverse is not always true. Sometimes it may be necessary to suspend 
or even depose one from office by reason of a sin committed, but that 
it is not necessary to apply discipline to him as an individual member. 
If an office-bearer has made himself guilty of a gross public sin, but 
clearly manifests sincere repentance, he need not be disciplined as an 
individual member. Discipline aims at repentance before God and 
reconciliation with God and His Church. If by God’s grace these ends 
have already been attained why should he still be censured as a 
member? But his sin may be of such a nature that great offense has 
been given, so that for some time to come at least, he can no longer 
function fruitfully as office-bearer. In that case he should be deposed 
from office, although discipline according to Article 76 would be un- 
necessary and out of place. Deposition under these circumstances 
would also be necessary to remove as much as possible the measure 
of disgrace which the sinning office-bearer has brought upon God’s 
name and His Church. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


325 


2. Which sins require discipline regarding office-bearers? 

Article 79 answers, “Any public, gross sin, which is a disgrace to 
the Church, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities/’ It may be 
necessary to admonish office-bearers because of minor offenses com- 
mitted. But these in and by themselves do not call for suspension and 
deposition. For this reason Article 79 speaks of gross sins. Neither 
is it always necessary to suspend or depose an office-bearer for a more 
serious offense committed if the sin is not generally known. If an 
office-bearer repents sincerely concerning a more serious, secret sin, 
he need not be suspended or deposed. No public, open offense has 
been caused and repentance is present. Therefore this article speaks 
of “any public, gross sin.” In this connection it should be remembered 
that certain sins which are at first secret, sometimes become public 
because of the sinner’s obstinacy and refusal to repent. 

The precise meaning and implication of the term “gross sins” is 
given in Article 80. Here the qualifying statement, “which is a dis- 
grace to the Churches, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities,” 
is added. Not all offenses bring disgrace upon the Church. However, 
when this is the case suspension from office is in order, and deposition 
may be necessary. The term “Authorities” here refers to the govern- 
ment. If one commits a sin for which he is liable to arrest and pun- 
ishment by the civil authorities, then he has made himself worthy of 
suspension or deposition as office-bearer. 

3. How discipline regarding office-bearers should proceed. 

The Elders and Deacons, so the article specifies, when they have 
committed any public, gross sin, shall “immediately ... be suspended 
or expelled from their office.” The Church Order does not mean to 
say, “forthwith, without a fair investigation and unbiased hearing,” 
but without first going to Classis. The word “immediately” regarding 
Elders and Deacons is contrasted in this article with the more in- 
volved procedure prescribed regarding the discipline of Ministers. 

But no Consistory has the right to suspend or depose one of its 
Elders or Deacons by itself. Inherently each Consistory does have 
this right. For this reason we should not be surprised that the very 
first redaction of the Church Order prescribed that Consistories could 
and should suspend and depose office-bearers when necessary. The 
Wezelian Convention, 1586, ruled that Ministers and Elders guilty of 
grievous public sins (openbare schelmstukken en booze daden) should 
be deposed by the Consistory without awaiting the advice of Classis. 
(Chapter 8, Art. 12). The Synod of Emden, 1571, Church Order Ar- 
ticle 33, ruled that Elders and Deacons who had made themselves 
guilty of public sins, bringing disgrace and slander upon the Church 
or punishable by the civil authorities, should be deposed from office 
forthwith by the Consistory. The Church Order of Dort, 1578, main- 
tained this position (Article 99). However, the Synod of Middelburg, 
1581, Article 64, provided that Elders and Deacons should be deposed 
only when their own Consistory and the Consistory of the nearest 
Church judged this to be right. This provision gave the Churches an 
additional safeguard against abuse and partiality. The Churches, in 
the interest of fairness and good government, agreed to limit them- 
selves in the execution of their inherent right. Henceforth no Elder 
or Deacon would be deposed except the Consistory of the nearest 
Church, as well as the Consistory to which the office-bearer in ques- 
tion belonged, felt that deposition was in order. 

Ministers, so the Wezelian Convention ruled, could also be deposed 


326 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


by their Consistories alone. (See reference above). But the first 
Synod, Emden, 1571, ruled that the Consistory should do no more 
than suspend from office. The deposition of Ministers was referred 
to the Classis. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, ruled that Ministers 
should be suspended only with the concurrent opinion of a neighbor- 
ing Consistory. Their deposition was left to Classis. Thus matters 
stand today. 

The Church Order in the present article gives rules for four dis- 
tinct situations, namely, the suspension of Elders and Deacons; the 
deposition of Elders and Deacons; the suspension of Ministers; the 
deposition of Ministers. 

The suspension of Elders and Deacons. When a Consistory finds 
that one of its number is guilty of a gross, public sin, it should meet 
immediately to consider the case. If it is judged that suspension or 
deposition is in order, it ought to notify the nearest Consistory that 
its judgment is needed. The two Consistories should meet simultane- 
ously and together to consider the case. Then each Consistory should 
vote separately. If the judgment of both Consistories concur, if both 
Consistories vote in favor of suspension, the decision stands and the 
party concerned is notified to this effect. Almost needless to say, the 
brother in question should be notified concerning the double Consistory 
meeting to be held regarding his person, and he should have a full 
right to speak for himself before both Consistories. 

Ordinarily a period of suspension will be from three to six months. 
In the meantime the suspended brother may not function as office- 
bearer though he is still in office. The decree of suspension with rea- 
sons should be given to the suspended office-bearer in writing and 
should be read to the Church. 

Deposition of Elders and Deacons. If the two Consistories sitting 
in judgment regarding a certain office-bearer find that a certain 
offense is so grievous that the brother in question cannot serve the 
Church with edification even after a period of suspension of several 
months, these Consistories may decide that immediate deposition is 
in order. Consistories have the right to depose forthwith, for Article 
79 rules that guilty office-bearers shall be “suspended or expelled 
from their office.” 

One who is suspended may not exercise the duties of his office while 
the suspension is in force. One who is deposed or expelled from his 
office has lost the office itself. Decisions for expulsion from office 
should be announced to the Church. 

Suspension of Ministers. The suspension of Ministers is required 
when these make themselves guilty of the sins considered above. 
Ministers, according to the agreement of the Churches contained in 
Article 79, shall be suspended upon the concurring decision of the 
two Consistories specified in the article. But, whereas the two Con- 
sistories can decide that deposition of Elders and Deacons is in order, 
these bodies can go no further than suspension regarding Ministers. 
The deposition of Ministers is subject to the judgment of Classis. 
This difference is not found in Article 79 because Ministers are better 
than others, but because they have given themselves to the work of 
the ministry for life and they have been ordained for life. A prema- 
ture or mistaken decision to depose would therefore be a more serious 
matter regarding a Minister, for himself and for the Churches, than 
regarding an Elder or Deacon. Moreover, Ministers have received cer- 
tain rights for and by all the Churches. They are allowed to admin- 
ister the Word and the Sacrament in all the Churches upon request. 
They have been admitted to the ministry upon the advice of all the 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


327 


Churches through their representatives. Consequently it is well that 
all the Churches are consulted before they are suspended or deposed 
from office. 

Suspension of Ministers will as a rule also require a period of three 
to six months. At the end of the period of suspension the two Con- 
sistories can lift the suspension and reinstate the Minister, or they 
can extend the period of suspension, or they may find that the Minis- 
ter in question should be deposed, in which case the matter goes to 
Classis. 

Deposition of Ministers. If the case is referred to Classis because 
deposition from the ministry is deemed necessary, the Synodical Dele- 
gates according to Article 11 must be requested to be present in order 
that they may render their advice to Classis. If the Classis and 
Synodical Delegates cannot come to agreement the matter goes to 
Synod for disposition. While a case concerning a deposition is pend- 
ing because a Classis and the Synodical Delegates according to Article 
11 cannot agree, the Minister’s suspension from office continues. If a 
Classis decides to depose and the Synodical Delegates concur, but the 
Minister involved appeals to Synod, his case should remain in status 
quo; that is, his suspension should be prolonged until Synod has ruled. 
A Classis would have the right to proceed to deposition under such 
circumstances, but unless the matter is urgent it is better to wait. 

4. May a Classis depose Elders and Deacons? 

Some have contended that a Classis may depose Consistories. The 
present authors feel that no major assembly, according to Reformed 
Church polity and the Church Order, has the right to depose a minor 
assembly. The deposition of a Consistory, for example, by a Classis 
or Synod would seem to be a violation of the integrity and of the 
rights of the particular Church concerned, whereas the Church Order 
in more than one article seeks to safeguard this integrity and these 
rights. (Cf. Article 30, 84.) Moreover, Reformed Church government 
does not tolerate group-disciplining. Discipline, according to our Re- 
formed conception, is always individual and never communal. 

Is it then permissible for a Classis or Synod to depose individual 
office-bearers? Regarding Ministers Article 79 clearly stipulates that 
a dual Consistory meeting may suspend a Minister. Furthermore, 
the article reads, “Whether these shall be entirely deposed from office 
shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis, with the advice of 
the Delegates of the (Particular) Synod mentioned in Article 11.” 
This provision is clear. No Minister shall be deposed unless the Classis 
concerned judges that deposition is in order. Deposition of Ministers 
“shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis.” And Classis shall 
be guided in rendering its opinion by the advice of the Synodical dele- 
gates according to Article 11. Without the concurring advice of these 
delegates, no Classis may decide that a certain Minister should be 
deposed. This last provision was added to Article 79 as an additional 
safeguard by the Holland Churches in 1905, and by our Churches in 
1914. 

Regarding Elders and Deacons Article 79 specifies that these shall 
be suspended or expelled from their office by sentence of their Con- 
sistory and that of the nearest Consistory. 

If any case is so involved and so complicated that the two Consis- 
tories concerned judge that the judgment of all the Churches of the 
Classis is needed, then the matter should be brought to Classis. In 
such a case the Consistory is expected to abide by the decision of 
Classis. The Consistory follows the advice of Classis. The Classis in 


328 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


such a case has a full right to appoint certain delegates who are to 
serve the Consistory with advice and who are to help the Consistory 
to carry out the conclusions of the Classis. 

If the case of an Elder or Deacon is brought to Classis by way of 
appeal on the part of individual members of the Church, or on the 
part of one or more consistory members, the appellants feeling and 
claiming that the Consistory as a whole is negligent or in error, then 
what is the correct procedure? Then Classis deliberates and draws 
its conclusions. If the decision is to the effect that the Elder (s) or 
Deacon (s) should be suspended or deposed, the Consistory concerned 
is informed regarding this decision and proceeds to execute the judg- 
ment rendered. Again, the Classis has a full right to appoint a com- 
mittee to help the Consistory in the execution of its task. If a Con- 
sistory feels that it cannot in good conscience accept the advice, it 
may appeal to Synod. If Synod sustains the Classis the Consistory 
should give immediate execution to the judgment of Classis. That is 
to say, the Consistory should suspend or depose the office-bearer in 
question. Failure to do so would bear dire consequences. For in such 
a case those Consistory members and individual members of the 
Church concerned who desire to adhere to the decisions of Classis and 
Synod should meet and declare the deflecting or recalcitrant Consis- 
tory members to be out of office, and new Elders and Deacons should 
be elected in their place forthwith. An extraordinary congregational 
meeting of this kind should be called under the guidance of classical 
delegates, or of a neighboring Consistory, preferably the former, to 
give assurance that all things will be done in good order. 

If any Consistory member thus deposed refuses to acknowledge his 
deposition and seeks to exercise his former rights, he makes himself 
liable to discipline as an individual member. 

If one or more deposed Consistory members, together with certain 
adherents belonging to the Church concerned, refuse to honor the 
acts of deposition and the election of new office-bearers, and when 
these moreover begin to hold separate meetings for worship, Classis 
should declare these members to be a schismatic group, outside of the 
Christian Reformed denomination and having forfeited all rights and 
privileges. 

It is true that Article 30 specifies that matters which cannot be 
finished by minor assemblies, though rightfully belonging to their 
domain, become the business of the major assemblies. But in view of 
the fact that the disciplinary articles of the Church Order clearly 
specify how discipline regarding office-bearers is to be exercised and 
in no way intimate that Elders and Deacons can be suspended or de- 
posed by the major assemblies, we do not believe that the appeal to 
Article 30 is justified. We believe that it is reasonable to assume 
that the early Synods at which our Church Order originated purpose- 
fully refrained from incorporating a provision in the Church Order 
which would allow our major assemblies to suspend and depose Elders 
and Deacons. As has been nointed out before, the early Reformed 
Churches were eager to safeguard the integrity and the rights of the 
particular Churches. The significant 84th article of our Church Order 
used to be Article 1! Let us also recall that it was not until 1581 
that the Churches decided that henceforth no Consistory would sus- 
pend or depose an Elder or Deacon without the concurrent judgment 
of its nearest neighbor Consistory. Furthermore, it cannot be denied 
that the question of deposition of Elders and Deacons is an important 
one. It is not unreasonable to assume that a provision permitting 
major assemblies to depose Elders and Deacons was left out of Article 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


329 


79 purposefully. For notwithstanding the fact that Article 79 tells us 
how Elders and Deacons shall be deposed it does not provide for the 
deposition of Elders and Deacons by Classes or Synods. And yet the 
same Article does specify that Ministers shall be deposed by the judg- 
ment of the Classis. 

We believe, moreover, that it can be contended successfully that 
the deposition of minor assemblies by major assemblies constitutes a 
negation of the general office of all believers, which should begin 
to function when certain abnormal situations arise, and that it like- 
wise involves an infringement upon the right of reformation which 
should ever be held inviolate by the Church of God. 

We realize that both during the formative period of the Reformed 
Churches and during their more advanced history, Classes and Synods 
have sometimes deposed Elders and Deacons and even Consistories. 
But no one would dare to claim that the Reformed Churches have 
always been true to themselves in matters of church government and 
that they have always interpreted their own Church Order correctly. 
Precedents do not decide this issue either one way or the other. We 
should seek to determine the basic principles fundamental to Reformed 
denominationalism, and we should seek the correct historical and exe- 
getical interpretation of the various articles of the Church Order 
which concern this question. Then we should draw our conclusions as 
to what is proper and improper. 

5. Sundry matters. 

The lifting of suspension should be done by the same bodies which 
imposed suspension, namely, the combined Consistories. 

Can those who have once been deposed from office be re-instated? 
Deposed Elders and Deacons may be nominated and elected if suffi- 
cient time has elapsed, if the brother in question has acknowledged 
his wrong and has given sufficient evidence of his repentance, and if 
the sin committed was not of such a nature that it will constantly 
hinder him in his work and undermine his influence. Of these matters 
the Consistory must judge. Re-instatement of Elders and Deacons 
cannot occur in the sense that the act of deposition is revoked and 
the brother concerned permitted to resume his place in the Consistory 
to serve the balance of his unexpired term. This cannot be done, no 
matter how penitent the brother may be. 

No Consistory should nominate deposed office-bearers quickly and 
lightly. 

Regarding deposed Ministers Synod of 1918, Article 52 decided that 
re-instatement must be effected by the Classis which acted in the 
deposition. The Holland Synod of Gronigen, 1927, decided that a de- 
posed Minister is not to be re-instated by Classis without the knowl- 
edge and approval of the Particular Synod. It might be well if our 
decision of 1918 (see above) were amended so that no deposed Min- 
ister can be re-instated without the approval of the synodical dele- 
gates according to Article 11. 

The Holland Synod of 1927 also decided that it would not be ad- 
visable to make general stipulations as to when a deposed Minister 
should be re-instated. Each case should be judged on its own merits. 
Classis should consider the question why the deposition took place, 
whether true penitence be evident, whether reconciliation was made 
and whether the deposed brother will be able to labor to the edification 
of the Church of God and without detriment to the holy character of 
the Church and the glory of God. No doubt this is wise counsel. 

What we term re-instatement the Holland Synods call “beroepbaar 


330 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


verklaren,” to declare eligible for a call. This indicates what the 
manner of procedure should be. 

He who erred in doctrine must be carefully examined before he is 
declared eligible for a call. If there is a difference of opinion Synod 
should judge. 

It is necessary that the Churches act with great prudence, espe- 
cially when sins have been committed which indicate a weakness of 
will-power, steadfastness of character, and complete consecration, 
such as adultery and drunkenness. . 

Emeritus Ministers are also subject to suspension and deposition. 
The Church which they last served and its Classis are responsible for 
an emeritus Minister that needs -to be censured, since our emeritus 
Ministers continue to be Ministers of the Church which they served 
last, though they have been excused of some or all ministerial duties. 

During the period of suspension a Minister is entitled to his salary, 
but after his deposition, if that should follow, the Church has no finan- 
cial obligations anymore. 


ARTICLE LX XX. 

Furthermore among the gross sins , which are worthy of being 
punished with suspension or deposition from office, these are the 
principal ones; false doctrine or heresy, public schism, public 
blasphemy, simony, faithless desertion of office or intrusion 
upon that of another, perjury, adultery, fornication , theft, acts 
of violence, habitual drunkenness, brawling, filthy lucre; in 
short, all sins and gross offenses, as render the perpetrators 
infamous before the world, and which in any private member 
of the Church would be considered worthy of excommunication, 

SINS REQUIRING SUSPENSION OR DEPOSITION OF 
OFFICE-BEARERS 

1. The purpose of Article 80. 

It is not the purpose of Article 80 to give us a complete registry 
of sins worthy of censure in office-bearers. Article 80 merely enumer- 
ates a number of sins so that the Churches may know which type of 
sins may not be tolerated in office-bearers. Doubtless the list is as 
long as it is because these things mentioned are indeed gross public 
sins which merit censure. But the Church Order has in no way en- 
deavored to be exhaustive here. For this reason the article also con- 
cludes with the statement that “all sins and gross offenses as render 
the perpetrators infamous before the world, and which in any private 
member of the Church would be considered worthy of excommunica- 
tion,” are worthy of suspension or deposition in office-bearers. The 
enumeration is therefore given by way of example, although it should 
not be forgotten that the sins enumerated are listed as being “the 
principle ones” which call for censure in office-bearers. 

2. The specific sins mentioned. 

False doctrine or heresy. When one deviates from one or more of 
the fundamental teachings of Holy Writ, as expressed in the confes- 
sional standards of the Churches, and that consciously and purpose- 
fully, he is guilty of false doctrine and heresy. The Church Order 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


331 


does not refer to variations from generally accepted teachings but 
which are not definitely expressed in our confessional writings. Nei- 
ther does Article 80 refer to slight variations regarding subordinate 
truths. Nor is it the implication that one who unintentionally, through 
the use of a wrong term or otherwise, states a matter erroneously, 
thereby makes himself worthy of discipline. The deviation must be 
conscious and deliberate. However, though one has not taught or 
spoken false doctrine deliberately and consciously, yet if he should 
maintain the false views in question and refuse to acknowledge their 
heretical and erroneous character, the error becomes conscious and 
wilful, and worthy of discipline. 

Public schism.^ This term concerns those, to use the words of our 
Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, who raise “dis- 
cord, sects, and mutiny in the Church.” Those who are guilty of public 
schism virtually sever their connections with the Church and that 
because of minor differences in doctrine or church government, or 
merely because they are seeking self -advancement and vain glory. 

Public blasphemy. He who speaks openly in an impious or irrever- 
ent manner of God or things sacred is guilty of this sin. 

Simony may be defined as the purchase or sale of ecclesiastical pre- 
ferment. The word is derived from the account of Simon the Sor- 
cerer, to be found in Acts 8:18-24. 

Faithless desertion of office or intrusion upon that of another indi- 
cates the sin of one who refuses to perform the duties of his office, 
and particularly does this offense pertain to Ministers who forsake 
their Church without proper release by Consistory and Classis, and 
who without a proper call begin to labor in a Church or field belonging 
to another. 

Perjury is the assertion of a falsity under oath. He is guilty of 
perjury who before God declares that a certain claim or statement is 
true, while he knows that it is false. 

Adultery is the violation of the marriage vow. The Dutch word is 
echtbreuk, that is, the breaking of marriage. Technically adultery 
may be defined as the sexual relationship of two persons, either of 
whom is married to a third person. 

Fornication is incontinence outside of holy wedlock, or illicit sexual 
intercourse. 

Theft refers to the sin of stealing, forbidden in the 8th Command- 
ment. 

Acts of violence refers to all disgraceful and sinful use of brute 
force. 

Habitual drunkenness. One who repeatedly drinks in excess is guilty 
of this sin. No one who is a slave to strong drink can serve accept- 
ably in the Consistory, even though he should never drink himself 
drunk. 

Brawling. This refers to engagements in uncalled-for fist fights and 
all noisy, needless quarreling. 

Filthy lucre refers to all dishonest gain. 

I Tim. 3:3, Titus 1:7, and 2:3 and other passages condemn these 
and other sins as intolerable in office-bearers. 

All sins which cause one to lose his good name before the world 
at large render an office-bearer worthy of suspension or deposition, 
so Article 80 states. And again, any sins which would be considered 
worthy of censure in any private member of the Church renders an 
office-bearer worthy of suspension or deposition from office, so the 
article concludes. 


332 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 
ARTICLE LXXXI. 

The Ministers of the Word , Elders and Deacons, shall before 
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper exercise Christian censure 
among themselves and in a friendly spirit admonish one another 
with regard to the discharge of their office . 

MUTUAL CENSURE 

1. The significance of this ruling. 

In Churches holding the hierarchical or episcopal system one office- 
bearer has greater authority than another. Consequently the higher 
office-bearers exercise supervision and jurisdiction over those that oc- 
cupy lower offices. The archbishop supervises the bishop; the bishop 
supervises the priest, etc. But the Reformed Churches are Presby- 
terian also in the matter of supervision. The office-bearers are equal 
in authority, each in his own sphere, and supervision is mutual. They 
supervise each other, just as the Churches supervise each other (Ar- 
ticle 44). Now Article 81 provides for this mutual supervision of 
office-bearers. 

The common term by which this mutual supervision has been known 
for years back is censura morum, which Latin term signifies a censor- 
ship or examination of conduct. 

This mutual censure, according to Article 81, shall concern the 
office-bearer’s discharge of his office. If an office-bearer is chargeable 
with neglect of duty or with a wrong approach to his task, the matter 
should be brought to his attention at the time of mutual censure. 
Mutual censure concerns itself with the question: Do the Ministers, 
Elders and Deacons perform their work as it ought to be done? 

The matter of this article was first incorporated into the Church Or- 
der by the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 66. This article provided that 
the investigation should concern “doctrine as well as life.” Nothing 
was said about the execution of the office held. But Synod of ’s Gra- 
venhage, 1586, Art. 74, altered the reading of the article. It deleted the 
provision that the investigation should concern “doctrine as well as 
life,” and provided that the investigation should concern “the discharge 
of their office.” Thus Article 81 reads today. This does not mean that 
the doctrinal position and general conduct of the office-bearers should 
be forgotten and silenced at the time of mutual censure. But the 
Synod of 1586 doubtlessly altered the Article as it did because it 
wanted the office-bearers to remember that mutual censure concerns 
the fulfilment of one’s duty as office-bearer first of all. However, one’s 
belief and general behavior stands closely related to one’s execution 
of his office, and the matter of doctrine and life cannot be ignored. 
Nevertheless, the question which Dresents itself at the time of mutual 
censure is this: Does any one of the office-bearers desire to criticize 
one or more of his fellow office-bearers regarding their work as office- 
bearers ? 

From the foregoing it will be clear that essentially mutual censure 
has nothing to do with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The 
question is not whether any of the office-bearers have any grievances 
against one or more of their fellow consistory members, grievances 
namely which would hinder them in celebrating the Lord’s Supper 
properly. Naturally, brethren in service should never go to the Lord’s 
Table unless the right brotherly relation exists between them. But 
this is true for all the believers, and should not require a special in- 
vestigation. Nevertheless, the mistaken conception just noted is quite 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


333 


general. Doubtless this is due to the fact that Article 81 specifies that 
this investigation shall take place “before the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper.” This provision is not found in the Church Order 
from the year 1586 on. It is not found therefore in the Church Order 
redaction of Dort, 1618-19. Neither do the Churches of Holland have 
it in their 81st article today. We went back to the redaction of 1578 
and 1581 in 1914 and re-incorporated this phrase. Why this was done 
we cannot say. Perhaps it was to give the Churches assurance that 
mutual censure will be exercised in all Consistories at least four times 
a year. If the original reading of Article 81 (1578) contained this pro- 
vision because the Churches at that time deemed it necessary that 
Consistories exercise mutual censure with a view to the Lord’s Supper, 
an opinion which no authority seems to hold but which is not entirely 
impossible, then yet it is certain that our Synod of 1914 did not re- 
incorporate the phrase for this reason. 

2. How mutual censure should be exercised. 

The manner in which the Consistories were to exercise mutual cen- 
sure has always been left to the judgment of each Consistory. Years 
ago consistory members would absent themselves from the meeting, 
one by one, in order that the others might freely express themselves 
regarding the absentee. But this procedure should not be necessary. 
The brethren should be willing to mention the matters that require 
mention in the presence of the party concerned. This important in- 
stitution should stand on such a high plane that all office-bearers will 
accept with Christian grace and forbearance any corrections or im- 
provements which his fellow office-bearers may be able to offer. 

In some Consistories the president mentions the names of the office- 
bearers, one by one, and asks each one of the other Consistory mem- 
bers whether they have any criticism to offer. As a rule, however, 
the president asks in general whether any of the office-bearers have 
any criticism to offer to any of his fellow office-bearers regarding the 
discharge of his office, a reply to this general question being asked of 
each member individually. 

Needless to say, mutual censure must never be turned into fault 
finding. The purpose should be to assist each other for the benefit of 
the Church and for the glory of God. And only then has one the right 
to correct his fellow office-bearers if he can do it in love and fairness, 
and if he is willing to receive reproof himself if necessary. 

In some instances a private heart to heart talk may be preferable 
to a discussion of the matter in Consistory. But any consistory mem- 
ber has the full right to broach a matter at the time of mutual cen- 
sure. 


ARTICLE LXXXII. 

To those who remove from the Congregation a letter or testi- 
mony concerning their profession and, conduct shall be given by, 
the Consistory signed by two. 

CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATES 

The matter of certificates is also mentioned in Article 61, which 
article provides that none “who come from other (Christian Reformed) 
Churches” shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except they have 


334 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


made a confession of the Reformed Religion, besides being reputed 
to be of a godly walk. This rule requires that members leaving one 
of our Churches and seeking to join another shall not be accepted 
without a testimony from the Church which they are leaving, declar- 
ing that they are Reformed in doctrine and godly as to conduct. 
Article 61 therefore concerns certificates from the point of view of 
the receiving Church. 

Article 82 concerns certification from the point of view of the 
Church to which the departing member belongs. 

1. To whom certificates should be given. 

Article 82 declares: “To those who remove from the congregation 
a letter or testimony . . . shall be given.” This provision applies first 
of all to those who are members-in-full, to those who have made pro- 
fession of their faith. Strictly interpreted the article refers to these 
only. The specific reference is to those who have come to maturity 
and have confessed their faith and have received access to the Sacra- 
ments and all the privileges of the Church. Members-by-Baptism only 
are incomplete, immature members who thus far have failed to make 
a profession or confession and concerning whose profession nothing 
can therefore be said. But Article 82 speaks specifically of “their pro- 
fession” concerning which testimony must be given: For this reason 
we say that strictly interpreted Article 82 refers to members-in-full 
only. Nevertheless Article 82 does not exclude those who by virtue of 
their birth and Baptism stand related to the Church and under its 
care. By implication also the immature, incomplete members are cov- 
ered by Article 82. Only the statement which Consistories will make 
concerning those who have not yet professed their faith will differ 
from the statement issued concerning members-in-full. Concerning 
members-by-Baptism Consistories can only certify that they have 
been baptized and what their general, external behavior has been. 
Such matters as Church attendance and catechism attendance should 
be included in the testimony. 

The question has often been asked: Should Consistories deliver 
membership certificates to the Consistories to whom application for 
membership is being made, or should the certificate be given to the 
party whose membership is being certified so that he may deliver it 
himself? Article 82 leaves no room for doubt here. We read: “To 
those who remove from the congregation a letter or testimony . . . 
shall be given . . .” The opening words: “To those who remove” have 
sometimes been read to mean: “Concerning those who remove.” This, 
however, is not the significance of the words. Church Order authori- 
ties such as Rutgers, Bouwman, and Jansen are all agreed on this. 
Our Synod of 1914 (Article 63) also came to the conclusion that 
Article 82 provides that the departing parties shall themselves receive 
their membership certificates to be given to the Consistory of the 
Church to which they are going. The fact that this is the provision 
of Article 82 becomes especially plain from our official and historic 
Dutch text. We read: “Dengenen, die uit de Gemeente vertrekken, zal 
eene attestatie of getuigenis . . . medegegeven worden . . .” which 
literally translated would read: “An attestation or testimony shall 
be given along with those who remove from the congregation . . .” 
Reformed Church government regards believers not as minors but as 
those who have come to years of majority. It recognizes the rights of 
believers and encourages the exercise of these rights and responsibili- 
ties. Our members should be active and aggressive and not passive. 
Let those who remove request a certificate and let them deliver this 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


335 


certification of their membership in person as they apply for member- 
ship in the Church of their new environment. Only those who would 
be inclined to hold that our particular Churches are but local divisions 
of the one super Church, the denomination, can favor the procedure 
of mailing certificates from one Consistory to another by preference. 
For in this conception certification of membership is really a transfer 
of membership from one division to another. 

By this we do not mean to say that a Consistory should refuse to 
mail a certificate directly to the Consistory of the Church a member 
seeks to join. Not at all. If a member specifically prefers to have 
his certificate sent to the Consistory of the Church of his new loca- 
tion, there are no reasons why it should refuse to do so. For some 
members this may be a very good procedure. But, this is the point, 
the Church Order gives our members a right to personal delivery of 
their attestations, and in the interest of self-assertion it is well to 
encourage them in doing so. 

If a member moves to another Church community and yet fails to 
request a certificate, his attention should be called to his neglect. 
The Consistory has no right to send a certificate to the Church with 
which he should affiliate without the member’s specific request or 
consent. 

In case a member moves to distant parts and fails to request certi- 
fication the Consistory should write to him, if need be, often. If one 
of our Churches is found in the place of his new residence, the Con- 
sistory of that Church should be informed and asked to call on the 
negligent member, urging him to request certification, etc. If nothing 
avails, then the membership of such a one would ultimately lapse. A 
Consistory would be compelled at long last to announce to the Church 
that the party or parties in question had by their indifference and 
negligence, notwithstanding frequent admonitions, nullified their mem- 
bership, and that consequently the Consistory had declared their 
rights and privileges void and their names removed from the roll. 
Such a procedure would not imply nullification on the Consistory’s 
part of their Baptism and confession. God ever holds them respon- 
sible for their privileges and promises. But it does mean that all their 
rights as Church members have been revoked. 

In case one moves from the Church, leaving no word or address 
behind so that he cannot even be contacted by mail, then the Con- 
sistory should endeavor, through relatives, friends, etc., to establish 
contact with him. If all such attempts fail, at long last the Consistory 
will cancel his membership rights, upon the basis of his neglect and 
withdrawal, as indicated above. 

Synod of 1910, Article 67, ruled that members (in full or only by 
virtue of their Baptism) moving to localities where no Christian Re- 
formed Church is found, may retain their membership in the Church 
which they leave, if they notify the Consistory to this effect. If they 
neglect to do this their membership lapses in one year and six weeks. 
The membership of such members as are located where no Christian 
Reformed Church is found must be transferred to the nearest Church. 
If this is omitted their membership lapses after one year and six 
weeks. Concerning these decisions of 1910 we would remark that it is 
well that our members who must sometimes live at great distances 
from our Churches can retain their membership with us. But we 
should also urge our membership not to make such moves unless they 
can give account of themselves before God, unless the circumstances 
are urgent. Too many of our members have moved to distant localities 
very unfavorable to their spiritual life and that of their children with- 


336 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


out a real necessity. Furthermore, for such members to affiliate with the 
nearest Christian Reformed Church is certainly advisable, provided 
that that nearest Christian Reformed Church is near enough to per- 
mit such members to worship with this Church occasionally, and near 
enough for the Consistory of this Church to exercise some pastoral 
care, through home visitation, etc. If the nearest Christian Reformed 
Church is too far removed to permit this, the party in question can 
much better retain his membership with the Church which knows him 
and his situation somewhat. He who desires to retain his membership 
with one of our Churches at a great distance should write to the Con- 
sistory at certain intervals, say at least once a year, informing the 
Consistory of his state and of his desires for the future. He should 
also gladly help to contribute to the Lord’s cause through the Church 
in which he retains his membership. Regarding the rule of one year 
and six weeks, we would remark that these are very arbitrary figures. 
There are no two cases alike. We believe that it is far better to judge 
every case upon its own merits. If this is done Consistories may 
feel that they must bear with certain parties for beyond this term of 
one year and six weeks. 

When one requests a certificate for another Church and also re- 
ceives said certificate, does his membership in the certifying Church 
then cease instantly? No, it does not. It has happened in the past 
that a member received a certificate with the purpose of joining an- 
other Church, but that the Church which he desired to join refused 
to receive him, and that the Church which gave him a certificate 
refused to recognize him as still a member. Thus members in good 
and regular standing were suddenly rendered Churchless, and chil- 
dren of God in Christ lost their access to the Sacraments, etc. This 
situation rested largely on a misconception. It was assumed that if 
one requested a membership certificate he was by that act severing his 
relationship with the particular Church in question. Yet the certificate 
always employed the present tense. Thus for example: “The Con- 
sistory of the Christian Reformed Church hereby testifies 

that is a member of this congregation . . .” He who 

requests a certificate merely requests to have proof of the fact that 
he is a member of such-and-such a Christian Reformed Church in or- 
der that with this testimony he may join the Church of his new 
residence. As soon as he has been received as member by the new 
Church his membership in his former Church ceases, but not before. 

The Synod of 1937 appointed a committee to look into this very 
question and the matter of attestations in general. This committee 
rendered a well-founded report to the Synod of 1939. We believe that 
the form for certification of membership approved by the Synod of 
1939 does justice to the various requirements of the Church Order 
and sound Church polity. Let all the Churches use only this form, or 
let them bear the distinctive features of this form in mind, whenever 
they certify the membership of any of their members. 

2. By whom certificates are to be issued. 

Article 82 provides that certificates shall be given “by the Consis- 
tory.” Requests for attestation or certification must therefore be con- 
sidered and acted upon by the whole Consistory. Neither the Minister, 
the clerk, nor the two together have the right to issue certificates of 
membership. The testimony to be given must be that of the Church’s 
ruling body, not that of one or two office-bearers. 

Requests for certification by those who move should be placed as 
soon as possible. Often members wait until after they have moved. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


337 


Then perhaps a Consistory meeting has just been held when the re- 
quest arrives. Thus there is often needless delay. In larger Churches 
in which the Consistory does not know all the members sufficiently to 
write a trustworthy certificate, the request for certification should be 
announced to the Church, so that those of the congregation who may 
known of reasons why the applicant should not receive a clear testi- 
mony may inform the Consistory. If irregularities are discovered 
these should be removed before a certificate is given, if this is at all 
possible. If this is not possible, these irregularities should be noted 
in the certificate so that the Consistory of the Church which the re- 
moving member is joining may see to it that such irregularities are 
cleared away. The Church should receive three or four days in which 
to report objections against such as desire to leave the Church with 
the clerk of the Consistory or a committee on certificates appointed 
for this purpose. 

3. That which a certificate should include. 

The Church Order of 1578 specified (see Synod, Dort, 1578, Art. 25 
or 10) that the pious and God-fearing should be recommended with 
these words: that they shall have conducted themselves in the Church 
of God in a Christian way, without giving occasion for complaint and 
offense (datse in de Kerke Gods Christelyk [sonder opsprake en 
ergenis] gewandelt hebben.) The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, Article 82, 
speaks only of “een Attestatie ofte getuygenisse hares wandels” (an 
attestation or testimony regarding their conduct.) However, conduct 
is controlled by convictions. Doubtlessly the early Synods included un- 
der “wandel” conduct, doctrine, or confession. This is also the opinion 
of Jansen. * The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 
in their Church Order redaction of the 1905 revised Article 82 to read: 
“concerning their profession and conduct.” We accepted this reading 
in 1914. 

All members who by their profession and conduct have not given 
occasion for well-founded complaints and who have not given offense 
are entitled to receive a favorable recommendation, a “clean” attesta- 
tion. All others, unless the matter can be cleared away satisfactorily, 
receive a certificate which states facts as they are, so that the new 
Consistory may do what is necessary. 

Denominational unity, federative co-operation according to the unity 
in Christ and the Word of God requires that the Churches honor and 
accept each other’s certificates. Every certificate issued upon the re- 
quest of the member concerned because he now lives within the 
bounds of the Church which he seeks to join, must be accepted, even 
though the member concerned is being disciplined, or may be known 
to be rather critical and unreasonable in his attitudes. The sheep of 
Christ’s pasture are not all equally loveable, but all of Christ’s sheep 
must be guided and nourished. Christ loves all of His sheep. We may 
not cast out any. But this same principle also demands that no Con- 
sistory may manipulate certain members into the fold of a neighbor- 
ing Church just because these members are hard to satisfy etc. Leav- 
ing one Church and affiliating with another must always take place 
upon sufficient reasons. When these sufficient reasons are present ap- 
plication for membership must be accepted. 

It should not escape our attention that Article 82 provides that to 
those “who remove from the Congregation” certificates shall be given. 
All authorities are agreed that this provision refers to those who 


• Jansen, Korte Verklaring\ etc., 1923, p. 354. 


338 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


actually remove out of the territory of one particular Church into 
that of another. Strictly speaking, those who do not change their 
place of residence, but merely desire to affiliate with another congre- 
gation, have no right to a certificate. However, we have almost en- 
tirely erased all boundary lines between our particular Churches — a 
fact much to be regretted for more than one reason — and therefore 
as a rule issue certificates also to those that do not remove. * 

4. How certificates should be authenticated. 

Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, ordained that certificates should be 
issued “under the seal of the Church, or, where no seal is, signed by 
two.” Thus the matter of authentication remained until the Holland 
Churches in the year 1905 caused the article to read “signed by two; 
or in the case of letters, which are given under the seal of the Church, 
signed by one.” Our Churches adopted this reading in 1914. How- 
ever, the Synod of 1939 changed the article so that it now simply 
provides that membership certificates shall be signed by two. 


ARTICLE LXXXIII. 

Furthermore, to the poor, removing for sufficient reasons, so 
much money for traveling shall be given by the Deacons, as they 
deem adequate. The Consistory and the Deacons shall, however, 
see to it that they, be not too much inclined to relieve their 
Churches of the poor, with whom they would without necessity 
burden other Churches. 

ASSISTANCE TO DEPARTING POOR 
1. Origin of Article 83. 

Pressure of circumstances gave birth to the provisions of Article 
83. During the early days of the Reformed Churches of Holland the 
Deacons were often called upon to help, besides their own needy poor, 
those who passed through, traveling to some city or town in search 
of work or to escape persecution, but lacking money for food and 
shelter and for the continuance of their journey. Moreover, a large 
number of transients called upon the Diaconates of the Reformed 
Churches for help who were not of the faith but who claimed to be 
fleeing for their lives and safety. Hundreds, it should be remembered, 
were driven from their homes by the persecutions. These, in many 
cases, had to leave all their possessions behind and were completely 
destitute and certainly in need of help. And, as a rule, this help was 
gladly given by the faithful to these refugees as they traveled on. 
Now of this Christian helpfulness the tramps and transients to whom 
we referred sought to profit. They feigned to be persecuted believers. 


* Some of the considerations which lead us to say that our failure to 
maintain boundary lines between our Churches is to be regretted are the 
following: 1. Believers should manifest the body of Christ in the place 
of their providentially determined residence. 2. It is against the intent 
of Article 82. 3. It fosters the overgrowth of some Churches and the 

undergrowth of others. 4. It promotes “floating”. 5. It promotes a one- 
sided development. (Birds of a feather flock together.) 6. It stimulates 
unholy competition. 7. It promotes slothfulness in catechism attend- 
ance. 8. It promotes needless Sunday travel. 9. It constitutes a prac- 
tical denial of the communion of saints. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 339 

These impostors took much money intended for needy poor and 
refugees. 

Now in order to counteract these evils the first Synod, Emden, 1571, 
decided that all who moved from one place to another should carry 
with them an attestation or certificate. Those who failed to show a 
good attestation should from henceforth not expect help from the 
Diaconates of the various Churches. If anyone without an attestation 
claimed that the persecution prevented him from even securing the 
necessary document, then the Churches should examine them very 
carefully regarding their faith, etc., before accepting their testimony. 

If it appeared that an applicant for an attestation was moving 
needlessly, and that his change of residence would most likely reduce 
him to poverty so that he would become dependent on the Deacons, 
then no attestation was to be given. He was urged not to move. 

Attestations, so the Synod decided, should indicate the full name 
of the holder, his native country, trade, reason for moving, time spent 
in the Church giving the attestation, conduct, date of departure, des- 
tination, etc. It was furthermore provided that those who moved 
should receive money sufficient to bring them to the next Reformed 
Church through which their journey would lead them. Each Church 
should write on the attestation how much money had been given them, 
by whom, when, etc. At the end of their journey the Reformed Church 
there would help them, and also destroy the attestation. * 

All these provisions were ultimately reduced to one brief article, 
our present 83rd Article. 

We may conclude therefore that Article 83 owes its origin in the 
first place to the large numbers of impostors who sought and gained 
relief under pretense of being Reformed refugees or poverty stricken 
fellow-believers. In the second place, due to want and poverty and to 
the economic upheaval caused by wars and persecutions, large num- 
bers sought for work and improvement elsewhere. But for many of 
these, search for economic betterment ended in complete destitution, 
with the result that the Churches were thus burdened unnecessarily. 

These circumstances occasioned the adoption of the rules noted 
above, of which Article 83 is a remnant and summary. After the year 
1572, when the persecution ceased, elaborate stipulations were less 
necessary. 

2. Significance of Article 83. 

Article 83 now pertains to our ordinary needy ones. If any of our 
poor desire to move and if the Deacons feel persuaded that there are 
sufficient reasons for their departure, then these poor are entitled to 
as much help as the Deacons shall deem adequate. Until 1905 for the 
Churches in Holland, and until 1914 for our Churches, Article 83 stipu- 
lated that the amount given to departing poor should be noted on 
the reverse side of their attestation or certificate. Now, however, this 
is no longer required. Those who stand in need of traveling expenses 
are not so numerous, and the Deacons should exercise good will and 
confidence toward those who are worthy of the Church’s help. 

3. The warning included. 

The conclusion of Article 83 is an addition of the years 1905 and 
1914. “The Consistories and the Deacons shall, however, see to it 
that they be not too much inclined to relieve their Churches of the 
poor, with whom they would without necessity burden other Churches.” 


* Church Order, Synod of Emden, 1571. Art. 44-47. 


340 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


It is a privilege for any Church to help in the relief of distress and 
poverty. This is a beautiful task which we may perform for Christ, 
the merciful High Priest. But there is a human side to this work of 
mercy. Sometimes the work of the Deacons becomes very heavy. Then 
the Consistory or the Deacons might lose sight of the glory of the 
task of supplying Christ’s needy ones with their necessities, and they 
might encourage the poor to move elsewhere when there is no security 
that such needy ones will be able to support themselves in the loca- 
tion suggested. Against this practice Article 83 warns. Each Church 
must support its own poor, if need be through the assistance of 
neighboring Churches. And only if there is a reasonable expectation 
that the family or individual in question really will be much better 
off in the new location should the Consistory and Deacons encourage 
the move. Almost needless to say, no Church will ever encourage any 
of its poor to move to a new location because economic betterment 
may be expected if the financial opportunity would involve at the 
same time a spiritual loss. It is better to be out of work but with 
God’s people than to be regularly employed but in the midst of the 
world and far removed from God’s people. 

Each Church must support its own poor as noted above, but there 
are partial exceptions to this rule. For instance, when one in need 
of help moves to an institution of mercy such as Bethesda at Denver, 
then he should affiliate with one of our Denver Churches, but the 
Church from which he comes should remain responsible for his sup- 
port. 

When one in need leaves his home Church under extraordinary 
circumstances and for a Church which is already heavily burdened 
with needy ones from many places, then the Diaconate of the Churches 
from which such needy ones hail should correspond with the Diaconate 
of the Church of which the party concerned becomes a member, and 
agree to forward the necessary amount weekly or monthly so that 
the Deacons of the Church to which the needy brother or sister now 
belongs may supply his need adequately. 


ARTICLE LXXXIV. 

No Church shall in any way lord it over other Churches , no 
Minister over other Ministers , no Elder or Deacon over other 
Elders or Deacons . 

EQUALITY OF CHURCHES AND OFFICE-BEARERS 

In Article 17 the Church Order stipulates, regarding Ministers, 
Elders, and Deacons, that equality “shall be maintained with respect 
to the duties of their office and also in other matters as far as pos- 
sible . . .” Article 84 goes beyond Article 17 in that it rules out all 
hierarchical practices both as to Churches and as to Office-bearers. 
Article 84 stipulates that there shall be no lording, no domination, 
no assumption of authority of one Church over another and of one 
office-bearer over another. First let us consider the origin of this 
article and then its significance. 

1. The origin of this ruling. 

The provision of Article 84 is all important and goes back to the 
very origin of the Reformed Churches. Dr. F. L. Rutgers very cor- 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


341 


rectly calls careful attention to utterance and decision taken at the 
Wezelian Convention, 1568, the first gathering of Church leaders be- 
longing to the Reformed Church of Holland and nearby territories. 
Chapter IV, Article 7 of the conclusion of Wezel provides, among 
other things, that elected Elders shall promise “not to employ domi- 
nation, neither regarding the Ministers nor regarding the congrega- 
tion . . (Cf. also Chapter IV, Art. 9.) 

In Chapter V, Article 19 this same Convention definitely limits the 
authority of Classes and safeguards the rights of the individual 
Church. We read: “Nevertheless we do not here acknowledge the 
classical gatherings to have jurisdiction (recht) over any Church or 
its offices, except these shall permit it of their own accord, in order 
that the Churches may not be robbed against their will of their juris- 
diction (recht) and authority (gezag). 

And once more the gathering at Wezel, doing preliminary and pre- 
paratory work with a view to definite ecclesiastical confederation and 
co-operation, decided that “evident attempts at tyranny over the 
Church” were not to be tolerated in any Ministers. (Chapter VIII, 
Article 14.) It was also decided that the Classical gatherings to be 
held should preferably meet in different Churches and not always in 
the same Church, “partly to avoid domination of one Church over the 
other . . .” (Chapter VIII, Art. 20.) 

From all these early expressions it is plain that the Churches set 
themselves to safeguard the rights and individuality of the particular 
Churches. They made it very clear that they were aiming at denomi- 
national co-operation, not a unification of many particular Churches 
into one super-Church, vested with supreme jurisdiction over its vari- 
ous subdivisions. 

The maintenance of the jurisdiction and the individuality of each 
Church was seemingly so much the concern of these early Reformed 
Churches that they sought to safeguard these rights in the very first 
article of the Church Order adopted by the first regular Synod (Em- 
den, 1571). This article reads: “Geen Kerke sal over een ander Kerke, 
geen Dienaar des Woorts, geen Ouderling, noch Diaken, sal d’een 
over d’ander heerschappije voeren, maar een yegelyk zal hen voor alle 
suspicien, en aanlokkinge, om te heerschappen wagten.” (No Church 
shall dominate over other Churches, no Minister of the Word, Elder 
or Deacon shall dominate the one over the other, but every one shall 
guard himself against all suspicions and enticements to dominate.) 

Occasion for placing this all important article upon the foreground 
may have been the fact that many of the Churches had fears and 
scruples against the holding of Synods. The Churches of the province 
of Holland especially hesitated to co-operate. They feared that the 
particular Churches would lose their independence. Dr. F. L. Rutgers 
mentions that it required much effort to get the Churches, both those 
“under the cross” of persecution and those driven to neighboring 
lands by the persecution, to co-operate in holding a Synod. * Article 
1 of the Church Order of Emden (1571) now gave the Churches the 
assurance that denominational affiliation and co-operation did not at 
all aim at domination, and that all domination, the lording of one 
Church over the other, or of one office-bearer over another, stood con- 
demned in the very opening article of the Church Order. This article 
retained its place in the Church Order, although perhaps for reasons 
of logical sequence it was soon given a place in the department of 
Discipline, as Article 84. 


• Cf. Rutgers, College Voordrachten, 1918, p. 153. 


342 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


At the same time we may believe that the Churches of 1571 formu- 
lated the article quoted above because they desired to take a definite 
stand against Rome with its hierarchical system. Just because one 
Church was permitted to rule over another, and one office-bearer was 
permitted to rule over another office-bearer, the hierarchical system 
of Rome had become possible. Thus corruption had received a mighty, 
tyrannic weapon. Because the early Christian Churches had yielded 
their God-given authority and individuality and had been transformed 
into local subordinate sub-divisions of a great super- Church, general 
corruption and domination had become possible. The Reformation 
Churches desired no duplication of this error. Neither did they favor 
the appointment of Superintendents. Certain English and German 
Churches (Episcopalian and Lutheran) had appointed Superintendents. 
The Reformed Churches of these countries were urged by their gov- 
ernments to accept some system of superintendency. And these Re- 
formed Churches in England and Germany had yielded to some extent. 
The Reformed Churches in Holland disapproved of this. They desired 
that every Church should retain its individuality and that no Church 
should be elevated as to authority above the other Churches. And so 
also the Reformed Churches in Holland insisted that no office-bearer 
should rule over another office-bearer. Biblical equality was to be 
maintained. Every tendency to hierarchism was to be avoided. 

Let us add right here that we agree heartily with Dr. F. L. Rutgers 
when he says that although Article 84 gives expression to one of the 
fundamental principles of Reformed Church government, it is not the 
only church governmental principle which governs our denominational 
co-operation. In and by itself Article 84 might be used to plead the 
cause of Independentism. But Article 84 may not be isolated from 
other articles of our Church Order regarding our major assemblies, 
discipline, etc. * Such an erroneous isolation of Article 84 might easily 
lead one to conclude that in the Reformed system Classes and Synod 
can only advise and that these bodies cannot take authoritative deci- 
sions. Nothing could, however, be further from the truth. (Cf. Art. 
36, etc.) 

2. The significance of the ruling. 

By indicating the origin of Article 84 we have also indicated its 
purpose and significance somewhat. Briefly stated it may be said that 
in Article 84 the Reformed Church declared that each particular 
Church is an individual and complete manifestation of the body of 
Christ. The essence of the Church of Christ is found in every par- 
ticular Church. Consequently all Churches are essentially on par, and 
lording on the part of one Church over another cannot be tolerated. 
The same holds for all office-bearers. All Churches and all office- 
bearers are co-ordinate as to their authority, and all Churches and 
office-bearers are equally subordinate under Christ. 

Moreover, Article 84 tells us specifically and emphatically that de- 
nominational union does not cancel the individuality of the particular 
Churches. Reformed Church polity does not dissolve the various local 
Churches into one authoritative super-Church. The particular 
Churches have voluntarily confederated themselves in order that they 
might work together in Classes and Synods. For which purpose ? To 
assist each other and to co-operate regarding two things: Matters 
which the particular Churches cannot finish by themselves, and mat- 
ters which concern the particular Churches in common. 


Cf. Rutgers: College Voordrachten, 1918, p. 156. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


343 


It should be well understood that each local Church affiliating itself 
with the confederacy or denomination by that very act agrees to ac- 
knowledge the authority of the united Churches as functioning 
through Classes or Synods. So far the particular Churches have sub- 
ordinated their own inherent authority to the authority of all the 
Churches functioning through major assemblies. The particular 
Churches have agreed beforehand to submit themselves to the opinion 
of the majority, except when they are convinced before God that the 
conclusion of the majority is contrary to the Scriptures, or contrary 
to the rules of government agreed upon (Church Order). Except for 
this voluntary, self-imposed limitation, denominational unity and co- 
operation does not infringe upon the freedom and individuality of 
the local Churches. And only inasfar as the Church Order agreed 
upon limits the local Churches in the exercise of their native rights 
are the local Churches limited in this respect. Their individuality in 
no wise and in no sense of the word is cancelled. * 

It should also be very clear from this article that according to the 
Reformed conception, one office is not to be regarded higher than an- 
other. The ministry of the Word, the office of the eldership and the 
office of the Deacons all stand on par. Only the work assigned to each 
differs. But a Minister is not a bishop over the Elders. Neither do 
the Elders function as bishops over the Deacons. 


ARTICLE LXXXV. 

Churches whose usages differ from ours merely in nour 
essentials shall not be rejected . 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF KINDRED CHURCHES 
1. History of this article. 

Jansen is of the opinion that historically Article 85 goes back to 
the Wezelian Convention, 1586, Chap. I, Art. 9-11; and Synod of Em- 
den, 1571, Art. 21. However, these articles refer only to non-essen- 
tials, or indifferent usages practiced by the various particular 
Churches within the group then meeting in Convention and Synod. 
The assemblies at Wezel and Emden said nothing concerning other 
denominations or groups of Reformed Churches, whereas Article 85 
does exactly that. Article 85 says nothing concerning the toleration 
which Churches within our denomination have agreed to observe to- 
ward each other in matters that are non-essential, but it stipulates 
that Churches not belonging to our denomination shall not be “re- 
jected” because of things that are non-essential. 

Article 85 was adopted, so we may conclude, because the Reformed 
Churches of Holland desired to acknowledge the Reformed Churches 
of other lands as sister Churches. Article 72 (or 20) of the Synod 
of Dort, 1578, is the first reading of our present Article 85. This 72nd 
article speaks only of other Churches in general. But the Synod of 
Middelburg, 1581, (Art. 46) caused the expression “other Churches 
to read, “foreign Churches.” This reading of 1581 was accepted by 
the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, and this redaction is still in force today 
in the Holland Churches. It reads: “In non-essential things, the for- 


• Cf. Jansen, Xorte , Verklarixlg , , 1923, p. 359, 360. 


344 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


eign Churches, which maintain other usages than we do, shall not be 
rejected.” In our revision of 1914 we left out the adjective “foreign” 
inasmuch as we wanted the article to apply to Reformed denomina- 
tions right in our own country, as well as to Reformed Churches of 
other countries. 

2. Which non-essentials Article 85 refers to. 

The non-essentials of Article 85 refer to ecclesiastical usages. It 
does not refer to doctrinal or ethical non-essentials, for no doctrine 
and no ethical, moral, precept is non-essential. The expression “for- 
eign Churches” (de Buytenlandtsche Kerken) during the post-Refor- 
mation era always referred to Churches holding the Reformed faith. 
It referred to the Reformed Churches of France, Switzerland, Ger- 
many, and England. Doctrinally these Churches were one. They were 
all the fruit of the Calvinistic reformatory movement, the natural 
leaders of which were John Calvin and his Genevan school. Moreover, 
the word “usages” or Article 85 used to read “ritibus,” in the original 
Latin text. This Latin word refers definitely to rites, that is, eccle- 
siastical costumes or usages. So, for example, some Ministers at Bap- 
tism would sprinkle the person baptized three times; others only once. 
In some Reformed Churches the communicants stood as they partook 
of the Lord’s Supper; in others the communicants sat. Some desired 
that a Scripture passage should be read during communion; others 
favored the singing of psalms. Now, regarding all such and like 
questions, no Churches of other lands should stand condemned (Latin, 
damnandae non erunt . . .) by the Reformed Churches of Holland. 
They were to be regarded as Reformed Churches, for these ritualistic 
differences were non-essential. Article 85, therefore, refers to eccle- 
siastical usages which are of minor importance. It does not refer to 
doctrinal matters or matters of Church polity. It refers to matters 
which the Word of God and apostolic example have left to the various 
Churches to decide. Things which the Word of God prescribed, or 
which are clearly indicated by apostolic example, or which are logical- 
ly deduced from the teachings of the Bible, are never indifferent, non- 
essential. 

This acknowledgment of other Churches was more than theory to 
these early Reformed Churches of Holland. Witness the fact that the 
foreign Churches were all invited to co-labor with the Synod of Dort, 
1618-19, in regard to the Arminian disputes. Various foreign Churches 
sent able delegations which took an active part in this all important 
international Synod. 

It may be remarked here that no things are “adiophora” strictly 
speaking. Essentially many things are indifferent. But practically 
very few ecclesiastic matters are indifferent. Generally speaking, for 
example, whether the second service is held on Sunday afternoon or 
on Sunday evening is a matter of indifference. But for a local Church 
it is not indifferent, for services should be held at hours which enable 
the largest number of members to attend regularly. 

By implication our Churches in Article 85 do reject or condemn 
those Churches which differ from us in essential matters. We reject, 
for example, Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran Churches. We heartily 
acknowledge them as Churches of Jesus Christ as long as they confess 
Christ as their only Saviour according to the Scriptures and accept 
God’s Word as their infallible standard for doctrine and life. But we 
do not acknowledge them as Reformed Churches, and consequently we 
do not give them a voice and vote at our assemblies, and we do not 
accept members from these Churches upon their testimony, etc. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


345 


Under present day circumstances full-fledged acknowledgment is 
not even accorded to all Reformed and Presbyterian Churches inas- 
much as some of these bodies have neglected the exercise of discipline 
and have tolerated false doctrine. In theory, according to their official 
standards and creeds they are Reformed, but in practice they are not. 
The only Churches with which we maintain full and unconditional 
correspondence are the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands and 
the Reformed Churches of South Africa. 


ARTICLE LXXXVI. 

These Articles , relating to the lawful order of the Churchy 
have been so drafted and adopted by common consent , that they 
(if the profit of the Church demand otherwise) may and ought 
to be altered \ augmented or diminished. However, no particular 
Congregation, Classis, (or Synod) shall be at liberty to do so, 
but they shall show all diligence in observing them, until it be 
otherwise ordained by the General Synod. 

REVISION AND OBSERVANCE OF THE CHURCH ORDER 

This final article was added to the Church Order by the Synod of 
Middelburg, 1581, and has been maintained unchanged by the Churches 
of Holland. Our Churches have also maintained this article, the 
Synod of 1914 merely placing the words “or Synod,” between paren- 
thesis since this expression refers to Particular Synods, which we 
do not yet have, and eliminating the word “National” from the ex- 
pression “by the General or National Synod.” 

The article as it now reads was drafted by the Synod of 1581, but 
the Wezelian Convention already adopted a concluding article giving 
expression to the same thoughts in many more words. Reformed 
Churches were committed to the principles of Article 86 from their 
very origin. 

1. The nature and purpose of the Church Order indicated. 

Article 86 first of all informs us that the foregoing 85 articles relate 
or concern the lawful order of the Church. The Church Order seeks 
to regulate the affairs of the Church, not those of the state or of com- 
munity affairs. The articles of the Church Order are ecclesiastical 
rules of order. And the purpose of these articles is the establishment 
and maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ. (Cf. also 
Art. 1.) The Church Order aims at the lawful, regular, well-ordered. 
Biblical organization of the Church of Christ. The word “Church” in 
the expression: “relating to the lawful order of the Church,” does not 
refer to a local or particular Church, nor to the confederacy or de- 
nomination of Churches but to the Church of Christ, the sum total of 
the believers adhering to the Reformed faith and living within the 
domains reached by the Churches adopting these articles. The word 
“Church” cannot apply to a local Church, as all agree. Neither does 
the word refer to the denomination, for in that case a plural form 
would have been used. However, the original Latin, Dutch, and French 
texts all use the singular, as Rutgers points out* (ecclesiae ordinem; 


* Dr. F. L. Rutgers: College-Voordrachten, 1918, p. 178. 


346 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


ordeninge der Kerken [genitive singular]; l'drdre legitime de l'Eglise). 
The Church of Christ, the believers, must be organized into various 
particular Churches living in close and Biblical co-operation with each 
other. The offices must be instituted and the Word and Sacraments 
must be administered wherever God in His grace calls men and women 
unto Him. And these various particular Churches must live and work 
together in close harmony advising and assisting each other and rec- 
ognizing the authority invested in each by God and the leadership of 
the Spirit promised to each; acknowledging particularly this authority 
and leadership as exercised and enjoyed by the major assemblies, 
Classes and Synods. All things must be done decently and in good 
order. In all things the precepts and examples of God’s Word must 
be respected. For these purposes the foregoing 85 articles have been 
adopted. 

2. Adopted by common consent. 

In the second place Article 86 tells us that the articles of the Church 
Order were adopted by common consent. (Latin, mutus consensu; 
Dutch, gemeen accoort.) This does not mean that every one of the 
delegates to the assembly adopting the Church Order favored the 
adoption of every article and every stipulation. But it does mean 
that all the delegates agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. 
For a time the assemblies would vote twice regarding all issues. The 
first vote merely established the opinion of the majority. The second 
vote made the adoption of the matter at hand unanimous, the minor- 
ity conforming itself to the majority. Thus the Church Order articles 
were adopted by mutual consent, with common accord. In manciple 
this is still our method of procedure at our assemblies. Confer our 
remarks regarding this matter on page 144 and 145. 

3. Alterations possible and sometimes proper. 

In the third place Article 86 tells us that the articles of the Church 
Order may and sometimes ought to be altered, augmented, or dimin- 
ished. The articles have been “so drafted and adopted by common 
consent” that changes are possible. In other words, it was clearly 
understood when the Church Order was written and adopted that 
changes could be made and would have to be made at times. The 
articles of the Church Order are no hard and fast rules which cannot 
be changed. They are no laws of Medes and Persians. They are rules 
to maintain good order and to promote the spiritual welfare of God’s 
people. If good order and the welfare of God’s people require a 
change, a change should be made. This was understood from the very 
start and with this proviso in mind the Churches adopted the rules. 

This is the significance of the clause, “if the profit of the Church 
demand otherwise.” If at any time, through change of circumstances, 
the rules of the Church Order hinder the Churches, and are no longer 
to their true profit, then a change may and must be made. 

As stands to reason, that which is based on unchangable precepts 
of God’s own Word will always be to the profit of the Churches, and 
should never be changed, though some men may at times call for a 
change because seemingly the “profit of the Churches” demands a 
change. But all articles which are merely rules regulating matters 
not expressly mentioned in the Bible, or for which there are no defi- 
nite Biblical examples, are changeable. 

Changes should not be introduced without due consideration. Fre- 
quent and hasty changes in the Church Order make for instability. 
It tends to undermine the authority of the Church Order. But neither 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


347 


should we hesitate to make changes obviously necessary. Let there 
be a free discussion and thorough consideration of changes that may 
appear to be necessary. Then if the Churches are convinced that a 
change is needed, let no false conservatism hold us back. But again, 
frequent changes are disturbing. And let us watch our step, Alle 
verandering is geen verbetering!, as the Dutch say. (Not every 
change is an improvement!) 

Our English redaction of 1920 here reads: “If the profit of the 
Church demand otherwise.” Our official Dutch redaction of 1914 is 
true to the original. It reads: “If the profit of the Churches demand 
otherwise.” The English translation in this instance is clearly a mis- 
take. If ever a new redaction of our English translation should be 
adopted this mistake should be corrected. 

4. How only may alteration be made? 

No particular Church or Classis has the right to make changes in 
the Church Order. Only Synod, representing all the Churches which 
drafted and adopted the Church Order shall have the right to make 
changes. This is reasonable. Disorder would result if the minor as- 
semblies would begin to revise the Church Order. Consequently the 
Churches agreed in Article 86 to introduce no changes, except through 
the general Synod. 

We should also be careful not to make decisions which virtually set 
provisions of the Church Order aside, for such decisions are actually 
changes in the Church Order, although the Church Order is left intact 
formally. 

When a change in the Church Order is deemed necessary the matter 
ought to be discussed in our Church papers, and at Elders’ confer- 
ences, Men’s Societies, etc. Then the matter should be brought to 
Classis. If the Classis agrees that the matter is worthy of Synod’s 
consideration the Classis should overture Synod. Matters may of 
course be brought to Classis forthwith. But we deem a discussion and 
a careful consideration of the issues involved to be desirable in most 
cases. Matters concerning changes in the Church Order may also be 
brought directly to Synod by individual Consistories. (Cf. Art. 30.) 
But as a rule it is better to bring the matter to Classis first. 

5. Observance required. 

In the fifth place, this final article of the Church Order requires 
that the Churches and Classis “shall show all diligence in observing 
them,” i.e., the 85 foregoing articles. The Churches and Classes are 
therefore in duty bound to observe the rulings of the Church Order. 
The Church Order is not a book of iron-clad laws, it is not a set of 
legal laws which must be applied no matter what the result might be. 
These rules have been adopted to build the Churches, not to break 
them. Discretion and consideration must always be used. But the 
Church Order does consist of rules of good order to which all have 
agreed and which all must keep, “until it be otherwise ordained by 
the General Synod.” If in any particular situation the observance of 
the Church Order is a physical impossibility or would clearly create 
harm and disorder, a Consistory or Classis is free to suspend the 
rule for that instant, if at least the article in question does not con- 
cern a definite principle of Holy Writ. But even so it would be well 
in most instances to gain classical or synodical approval for such ex- 
ceptional procedure. 


348 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


It sometimes happens that individuals and Churches make a great 
deal of the expression “the profit of the Churches.” Now surely the 
adopted rules exist for the sake of the Churches, and not the Churches 
for the rules. And “the profit of the Churches” should guide us in 
our deliberations and conclusions. But this phrase should not be used 
to set aside clearly expressed rules of the Church Order. If altera- 
tions are needed, Synod should so decide. For the rest, let us show 
all diligence in observing the brief, simple, time-tested rules of our 
honored Church Order. This we have agreed to do, and this will be 
to the best interest of the Churches. 


INDEX 


Agenda 

Value of sending previous to meetings, 203f. 

Alms and contributions of charity. 

Significance of these terms, 114f.; when offerings should be taken, 
115. 

Amusements, Worldly 

Stand of Christian Reformed Church on , 253f., 297f.; correct 

approach to synodical decisions of 1928, 299; and Art. 72 Ch. 

O., 299. 

Anabaptists 

Contrasted with Reformed fathers, 13; and trained ministry, 

48; errorists, not heretics, 84; and their baptisms, 236. 

Appeal 

Why right of provided for, 141; when right of ...... exists, 141; 

to which body? 141f.; time limits for , 142; methods to 

be followed, 142; and representatives, 142f.; must minor as- 
semblies await action pending an ? 143; appeals and protests, 

grievances and complaints, 202f. 

Approbation 

Congregation must give when a Minister is called, 30, 40; how 

to be sought by Consistory, 30; how objections should be regis- 
tered, 30; final of elected candidate, when? 31; time required 

for before an election, 31; documents needed at Classis for ap- 

proval of call accepted, 38; of elected Elders, 105f. 

Archives 

How to be provided for, 200f. 

Assemblies 

Significance of the term in the Church Order, 15; their purpose, 
15; four in kind, 131; how they originated, 131f. ; significance of 
their names, 132; .... exercise binding authority, 133; authority 
limited to ecclesiastical matters, 134ff.; their proper business, 

136; 139; how should transact their business, 137; significance 

of terms “major” and “minor” applied to , 138; matters be- 

longing to “the Churches in common”, 140; can a major assembly 
invalidate a decision of a minor assembly? 143; majority vote re- 
quired at , 144; and small majorities, 144f.; decisions set- 

tled and binding, 145; when decisions are not settled and binding, 

145; and prayer, 147f.; sermons at ? 149; addresses at , 

149; songs to be sung at , 149; Bible reading at 149; cre- 
dentials for major , 150; instructions for major , 150f.; 

charges to delegates specific or general? 151; how should cre- 
dentials be signed? 152; when delegates are not to vote, 152; 

and advisory votes, 153; and their officers, 153f.; and 

stated clerks, 156; and Church paper reports, 156; duty of 

presidents, 156ff.; detailed rules for not desirable, 158; author- 

ity of major over minor assemblies, 160ff.; which language to be 
used? 219f. 


349 


350 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Assembly Officers 

Why this term, 153; nature of their position, 154; work of clerks, 
155; who should be clerk? 155; task of the president, 156ff., 168f., 
191; duration of their office, 159f. 

Assistants, Ministerial 

Who are ? 77f. 

Assistant Pastors 

Ruled out by Art. 17 Ch.O., 80. 

Arminianism 

Its rise prescribed care in calling Ministers, 25; Methodism er- 
roneous, not false, 84. 

Authority 

All of office-bearers delegated , 16, 164; basis for Church 

Order IX; ecclesiastical does not bind the conscience IX; 

limits of exercised by assemblies, 134f.; no higher and lower 

courts, 138. 

Baptism 

Church of Rome and 47f., 235; by traveling priests, 47f, 235f.; 

by monks, 48; which children to be ba'ptized? 230f.; and chil- 
dren of parents being disciplined, 231; and sponsors, 231, 239f.; 

and children of excommunicated parents, 231f.; and illegit- 
imate children, 232; of adopted children, 232ff.; may children 

of members-by-baptism be baptized ? 234f . ; by whom administered ? 
235; by Anabaptists, 236; by Socinians, Unitarians, Mor- 
mons, etc. rejected, 236; of Reformed children by Lutherans, 

236; general rules for recognition of , 236; how soon 

should be administered, 236f.; evil of postponing needlessly, 

237f.; to be administered at a regular church service, 238f.; when 

may be administered at home, 238f.; presentation of child by 

father, 239f.; forms to be used at , 241; origin of Baptismal 

Form, 241f.; adult and the Lord’s Supper, 243f.; age limit for 

Infant Baptism, 243f.; records of baptisms, 246f.; and giving 

of names, 248; why only given name mentioned at time of , 

248f. 

Bazaars, etc. 

Money raising schemes, 54, 116. 

Benevolence 

See: Deacons. 

Bible 

Expounding of basic to theology, 83; qualifications for a good 

expounder of the , 84. 

Bishops or Superintendents 

Ruled out by early Synods and Art. 17 Ch.O., 80f.; in Church 

of Rome, 100. 

Boards 

Care to be exercised by , 212. 

Boundary lines 

The value of between Churches, 73; presupposed by Art. 

15 Ch.O., 73. 

Budget system 

Budget contributions also gifts, 54. 

Buildings, Church 

As “spiritual retreats,” 266; open every day? 266. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


351 


Building and ground committees 

Their desirability, 17, 107; need not be Consistory members, 

155. 

Candidates 

By whom supervised and disciplined? 74. 

Candidating 

Dissapproved, 34; solution for emergency situations, 34. 

Call to another Church, Accepting a 

Sufficient reasons for , 33; not to take place without approval 

of Consistory and Classis, 50ff. 

Calling to Ministerial Office, Lawful 

Demanded by Holy Writ, 18f.; includes an internal and an ex- 
ternal call, 19f. ; through the Church, 20; who must extend 

the call ? 23 ; not by the congregation directly, 23f . ; the Re- 
formed and Presbyterian stand regarding and other systems, 

24; inherently the right of the congregation, 24. 

Calling of a Minister 

The and prayer, 22f.; the and fasting, 22£.; with the 

co-operation of the congregation, 24; no without advice of 

Classis, 26, 37; and “permission to call", 27; must Consistory 

call whom congregation elects? 31; is essentially for life, 33; 

evils to be avoided, 34; “candidating” out of order, 34; sugges- 
tions for calling churches, 35; should Ministers preach “on trial”? 
35; rules for calling a minister of another denomination, 35, 49; 
“Colloquium doctum”, 36; rules for repeating a call, 36; the two 
year minimum, 36; refunding of moving expenses, 36f.; when 
salaries become payable, 37 ; Ministers not to be called by Classis 
or Synods, 42f. ; conditional calls, 49f.; no call to be accepted 
without consent of Church and Classis being served, 50f. ; class- 
ical approval for leaving a Church, 51; asking advice from one’s 
Consistory when considering a call, 52. 

Catechetical Instruction 

Position of catechism teachers, 17f.; who should teach? 78; Synod 

of Dort and , 99f.; in schools during post-reformation 

times, 99f.; nine month period urged by Synod, 100; neglect of 

and discipline, 100, 299; its great necessity, 256. 

Catechism Preaching 

Purpose and value of , 276f.; is proper, 277; origin of 

277f.; every Sunday? 278; and early opposition 278f.; 

dangers to be avoided, 279f.; proper method, 279f.; section to 

be preached must be read to Church, 280; should be regular, 

280. 

Censure of Books 

How and why Reformed Churches sought to censure books, 227f. 
Censura Morum 

Meaning of , 332; when to be exercised, 332f.; how to be ex- 

ercised, 333. 

Ceremonies 

Significance of this term in the Church Order, 15. 

Certificates of Membership 

Why necessary? 256f.; to whom ...... should be given, 334; given to 

parties concerned or sent to Consistories? 334f.; given only upon 
request, 334f.; what if removed parties do not ask for ? 335; 


352 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 

members moving where no Chr. Ref. Church is located, 335f.; 
when membership in certifying church ceases, 336; by whom to 

be issued, 336f.; what should a include? 337; why . — should 

be accepted by Church addressed, 337; Art. 82 Ch.O. presupposes 

actual removal, 337f.; how are to be authenticated, 338. 

Christian Reformed Church 

Origin, VII; composed of Churches, not of individuals VIII; ...... 

and recognition of other Reformed Churches, 257f., 343f.; and 

non-Reformed churches, 344. 

Christian Schools 

Original reading of Art. 21 Ch.O. 92f.; post-reformation schools 

in the Netherlands, 93; parental the ideal, 93f. ; when the 

Churches should establish schools, 94; significance of Art. 21 Ch.O. 

today, 94f.; urgent need of , 95; and the Covenant of Grace. 

95f.; what are “good” ? 96; supervision over by Consis- 
tories, 96f.; Art. 21 Ch.O. and our public schools, 97; and dis- 
cipline, 98f.; Art. 41 Ch.O. and , 187f. 

Church 

Church and State, and Synod of Dort, 128; and governmental 

protection, 127f.; purpose of incorporation, 130; when not to be 
incorporated, 130f.; Art. 30 Ch.O. safe guards integrity of the par- 
ticular Churches, 139; what are combined Churches? 173; overly 
large Churches should divide, 184, 190; all Churches essentially 
equal, 340ff. 

Church and Churches 

Significance of these words according to Church Order usage, 13f. 
Church government 

Great import of , IX. 

Church of Christ 

Significance of term compared to Church, Churches, and congre- 
gation according to Church Order usage, 13f. 

Church Order 

Origin of the name, VIII; its brevity, Vlllf.; differentiated from 
classical or synodical decisions, IX; basis of its authority, IX; not 
a book of law, 13; purpose of the , 13f., 249, 345f.; main con- 
tent of , 14; Hospital Pastors, etc. subject to the Church Order 

also, 38f.; incorrect approach to , 42f., 102f.; and the 

Standards, 102f.; its value, 14; its basic principle, 70; revision of 
, 147, 346; adopted by common consent, 346; caution urged re- 
garding changes, 347; how changes may be made, 347; observance 

of an obligation, 347f.; the and the “profit of the 

Churches,” 348. 

Church Visitation 

Origin of , 193f . ; task of Church Visitors, 194f.; appointment 

of Church Visitors, 195; how many Visitors? 195; may Elders 
serve? 195; which Ministers to appoint, 196; how should Classes 
appoint Visitors? 196; time and method of visits, 197f . ; announce- 
ment regarding to congregation, 197; complaints against Con- 

sistories, 197; who presides? 197; matters to be stressed, 197f.; 
requesting consistory members to absent themselves, 198; record- 
ing of visits in consistorial minute book, 198f. 

Classical Committees 

Duties of pertaining to Churches calling a Minister, 37; duties 

in general, 37f. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


353 


Classis 

Significance of name, 132; no Church organized or disbanded 

against advice of , 171f. ; origin and nature of , 181f.; what 

is a Classis Contracta? 182; who are to be delegated to , 182f.; 

delegation to by rotation? 183; why every Church an equal 

number of delegates, 183, 189f. ; frequency and place of meeting, 
184f.; ...... and Stated Clerks, 185; who presides? 185f.; business 

for classical meetings, 186; questions for mutual supervision ac- 
cording to Art. 41 Ch.O. 186ff.; election of delegates to Synod, 

189; advisory members, 189f.; composed of Churches, not of 

individuals, 190; every “member’’ of should be delegated, 190. 

(See also; Major Assemblies). 

Clerks 

See: Assembly Officers. 

Collectors 

Helpers of office-bearers, 17f. 

Collegialistic Churches 

Their form of government compared with Reformed conception, 
72f. 

Confession of Faith 

See: Profession of Faith. 

Congregation 

Significance of this term in Church Order, 13f. 

Congregational Meetings 

Character and purpose of , 133, 169f. 

Conscience 

Not bound by ecclesiastical authority, IX, 146; Roman Church and 

the , 146. 

Consistory 

Who are members of ? 23 ; Consistories and Christian Schools, 

94f., 96f.; close relatives in , 102; do irregularities in one’s fam- 
ily disqualify for ? 102; the Church elects ....... 102f.; signifi- 

cance of name 132; Consistories and disputes about temporal 

affairs, 136f.; and preservice prayers, 148f.; may members ever 

read minutes? 156; every Church its own , 164; to consist 

of Ministers and Elders, 165; when Deacons may or must be added 

to , 165; should Deacons vote on disciplinary matters? 166f.; 

division of work for separate meetings, 168; how often meet, 168, 
187; who calls the meetings? 168f.; special meetings, 169; “quo- 
rum,” 169; and contact with the Church, 169; should all 

meetings be announced? 170; and weddings, 290. 

Cremation 

Should Christians cremate? 270. 

Counselors 

Why appointed, 26f. ; when to be consulted, 27, 35; duties of , 

27. 

Covenant of Grace 

Defined, 95; and Christian Schools, 95f. 

Deaconesses 

Why Reformed never ordained , 113f. ; their place and task, 

114. 

Deacons 

In the Roman Church, 101, 112f. ; essential character of office, 

1 1 If. ; qualifications for , 113; does poverty disqualify for of- 


354 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


fice of ? 113; their work, 114ff.; when offerings should be 

taken, 115; duties of near relatives toward needy poor, 115; 

and unemployment, 115f. ; and bazaars, etc., 116; and gov- 
ernment aid, 116, 120; and surplus funds, 116; and distri- 
bution, 116f; and business ability, 117; and their spiritual 

work, 117; and wastefulness, 118; and reports to be ren- 

dered, 118; diaconates normally separate bodies, but not independ- 
ent bodies, 118; why and how report to congregation ? 118f.; co- 
operation with other agencies, 120f.; and institutions of 

mercy, 121; ecclesiastical institutions of mercy, 121f.; diaconates 
assisting each other, 123; term deaconship vs. permanent deacon- 
ship in Presb. Churches, 123 ; their number equal to Elders ? 126f . ; 
nominating a retiring Deacon as Elder or vice versa, 127; how 
often meet? 177; matters for diaconal meetings, 177; and gen- 
eral finances, 178; Ministers to attend meetings, 178f.; 

and major assemblies, 179f.; Art. 41 Ch.O. and care for the poor, 

187; suspension of , 326; may a Classis depose a ? 327ff.; 

traveling expenses to departing poor, 338f. 

Denominational Unity 

Doctrinal agreement needed for , 132; does not dissolve in- 

tegrity of the particular Church, 133, 138f., 342f. 

Deposition of Office-bearers 

May a Classis depose Elders and Deacons? 327ff.; and ques- 

tion of reinstatement, 329ff. (See also: Discipline). 

Discipline 

What Christian includes, 15; right of Churches to exercise , 

15; Ministers and , 74f.; 76f.; Christian Schools and , 98f.; 

Art. 41 Ch.O. and , 187; character of ecclesiastical , 29 If.; 

no substitute for civil punishment, 292; Church Order indicates 

principles of only, 292; No penal code, 292; Bible demands 

, 293; objects of , 293; and resignation of membership, 

294, 315f.; and those moving to other parts, 294; always 

individual, 294, 327; requires responsibility, 294f.; none exempt 

from , 295; children as objects of discipline, 295; and mem- 

bers-by-baptism, 295; lodge-membership and , 295; and ob- 
jectionable labor unions, 296f.; and worldliness, 297f.; and 

neglect of catechetical instruction, 299; purpose of , 299f.; 

causes for , 300f.; when should begin, 301; do errors in 

doctrine merit ? 301; secret sins, if unnecessary not to be re- 

vealed, 301f.; the rule of Matthew 18, 301f.; when secret sins are 

repented of, 302ff.; individual believers should begin , 303f.; 

secret and public sins, 304; sins to be reported to Consistory and 
how, 305f.; may one not a member report to Consistory? 306; 
charges by outsiders and unbelievers to be considered? 306f.; 

charges in unsigned letters, 307; how investigate, 307; and 

the oath, 307; if no conclusion can be reached, 308; if one repents, 

308; reconciliation with the Church, 309f. ; when one under 

moves to another Church, 312; and suspension from the Lord’s 

Supper, 312ff.; various stages of , 313f., 317f.; three “steps” of 

public , 317ff.; wording of announcements regarding , 318; 

how much time between “steps”? 320f.; regarding office- 

bearers as such, 324ff.; who lifts suspension of office-bearers? 329; 
sins requiring suspension or deposition of office-bearers, 330ff. 

Dismissal from Service 

Differentiated from suspension and deposition, 55; when in order, 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


355 


55f.; no dismissal without approval of Classis and Synodical 
Delegates, 56; the standing of a dismissed Minister, 56f.; if a 
dismissed Minister receives no call, 57. 

Doctor 

Meaning and usage of term in Church Order, 17; the term as 
once used in Art. 18 Ch.O., 82. 

Doctrine 

Supervision of — necessary, 15; why placed before Sacra- 

ments and Ceremonies in Church Order, 221. 

Education, Christian 

See: Christian Schools. 

Elders 

Why not trained and examined, 101; chief requisites for good , 

101f.; by whom and how appointed, 102f.; duties of , 107f., 

110f.; term Eldership vs. permanent Eldership in the Presb. 
Churches, 123; their number equal to Deacons? 126f.; suspension 

of , 326; may a Classis depose ? 327ff. 

Elections 

How to be conducted, 24, 104; model set of rules for elections, 

104f.; to the ministry and prayers, 22; “free elections,” 23f.; 

inherent right of the Church to elect, 23f.; and congregational 

co-operation 24f.; and women, 25; members-by-baptism and 

censured members do not vote, 25. 

Emeritation 

Meaning of term, 61; no retirement age for Ministers, 61f.; why 

older men are not in favor, 61f . ; relation to last Church after , 

57, 62f., 65; valid reasons for , 61; extent of support to be 

given, 63ff.; how takes place, 65f.; and the common fund, 

66; and re-entrance into active service, 66f. 

Equality of Churches 

Prescribed by Art. 84 Ch.O., 340f.; great estimate placed on this 

principal by the fathers, 341; and its counterpart, 342. 

Equality of Office-bearers 

Biblical, 79; demanded by Act. 17 Ch.O., 79; reasons for , 80f.; 

the exception to this rule, 81. 

Evangelization 

Elder’s responsibility regarding , llOf. 

Examinations 

Origin of preliminary , 25f.; preliminary and the Secession 

Churches of 1834, 26; preliminary after 1892, 26; why Synod 

itself examines candidates, 26; origin of decisive or final , 28; 

subject matter of final , 28; and the specimen sermon, 29; 

why Classis conducts final , 29; Synodical Delegates present at 

final , 29; if Classis and Synodical Delegates differ, 29; when 

ordained men may be examined, 30. 

Exceptional gifts 

According to Art. 8 Ch.O., 45. 

Excommunicated Parents 

Baptized children of , 232. 

Excommunication 

Why rare? 315; why no without consent of Classis? 316, 319; 

Articles 76, 77 Ch. O. distinguished, 317; information needed by 

Classis to advise, 319; purpose of , 320; restoration of those 

once excommunicated, 321f. 


356 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Exhorters 

Character of their task, 17f.; should former Ministers receive the 
right to exhort? 60; their place in our Churches, 77; rules for 

in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 77f; student 

“preaching” since Reformation days, 89f.; rules governing stu- 
dent , 90; non-student exhorters, 91. 

Fasting 

When and why prescribed, 221; and the original 66th Art. 

Ch.O., 271. 
iFinance Committees 

Their desirability, 17f.; financial affairs the business of the 
Elders, 107. 

Form of Subscription 

Fourfold significance, 222ff.; to be signed by whom? 225; when 
should examined Candidates sign? 226; no changes to be made 
easily, 226. 

Forms 

Purpose of sacramental Forms, 241; origin of baptismal Form, 
241f.; Form for the Lord’s Supper, when to be read, 263; new 
form for marriages, 289. 

Funerals 

Sermons and services of Art. 65 Ch.O., 268f.; present customs 

considered, 269f.; addresses not sermons, 2T0; and corpses 

in Church buildings, 270; and flowers, tolling of bells, etc. 

270; and cremation, 270f. 

Giving 

Should ever be voluntary, 54; taxation out of place, 54; admon- 
ishing the unfaithful, 54. 

Good Friday 

Present day emphasis of , 274f. 

Gospel Workers 

Helpers of office-bearers, 8. 

“Hand-opening” 

Its significance and origin, 27; an obsolete usage, 27. 

Heresies 

Significance of the term, 84; and errors distinguished, 84. 

Heretical Writings 

How to be counter-acted, 229; distribution of and discipline, 

229f. 

Hierarchical Churches 

Their form of government, 79. 

Home Missions 

How missionary Ministers are to be called, 42f.; proper authority 
for preaching in various places, 70ff.; what must be done for 
groups not yet organized? 173f.; task of Classis, 175; duties of 

neighboring Consistories, 1761; not covered by Art. 51 Ch.O., 

2171 

Home Visitation 

Whose task? 108, 110; took place of Roman confessional, 108; its 
need and value, 1081; when? 109; purpose according to Wezelian 
Convention, 110. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


357 


Hospital Pastors, etc. 

To be regularly called, 38ff.; their rights and duties in Consis- 
tory, 40; all extraordinary ministerial positions governed by Art. 
6 Ch.O., 40f. 

Installation 

Why required? 38; of Ministers, which certificates? 52; 

of Elders and Deacons when their is protested, 106; signifi- 
cance of , 106; should re-elected brethren be reinstalled? 106; 

when cannot take place at time appointed, 127. 

Imposition of Hands 

See: Laying on of hands. 

Intruders 

How to be restrained, 21. 

Itinerant Ministers 

Who were they? 18, 41, 71; how to be admitted to office, 48; how 
Church Order guards against their abuses, 49. 

Janitors 

Aids to office-bearers, 17f. 

Labor Unions 

Position of our Churches regarding , 296f. 

Laying on of hands 

Its significance, 32f. 

Leave-of-absence 

Reasons for , 68f.; and persecution, 68; Art. 14 Ch.O. and 

indefinite leave-of-absence, 68; requires approval of Consistory, 

69; Minister on “subject to the call of the congregation,” 69f. 

Lodges 

Membership not condoned, 29f. 

Lord’s Day 

See: Sabbath. 

Lord’s Supper, The 

Adult baptism and , 243f.; admittance to , 249f.; not 

free to all, 250; office-bearers guardians over , 250; open and 

close communion, 255f.; and visitors, 256; admittance to 

of members coming from other Chr. Ref. Churches, 256f.; admit- 
tance to those coming from Churches of other denominations, 

257f.; methods and modes of administration, 259f.; and the 

offering, 260; individual or common cups? 260f.; things to be ob- 
served and things to be avoided, 262; real bread and wine, 262f.; 
the Form to be read, 263; words to be used by officiating Minister, 
263; to be observed how often? 264f.; preparatory and applica- 

tory sermons, 265; only in organized Churches, 256f.; in 

“branches,” 267; in homes or hospitals, 267f.; when dis- 
ciplined members should be barred from , 312f.; when 

should be postponed, 313; simple debarment from , 314; volun- 
tary refrainment from , 314f. 

Lutheran 

The Churches and the offices, 100f., 112. 

Major Assemblies 

Not to call Ministers, 43; for Deacons; 121f.; Acts of pre- 
vious gatherings at , 199f.; previous decisions to be read, 

201f.; how matters may be brought before , 202f.; instruc- 
tions to , 202; appeals, protests, grievances, complaints, 202f.; 


358 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


deal with specific instances only, 203; Churches or individual 

members may petition directly on matters of general concern, 203; 

and “fraternal delegates,” 208; may major assemblies depose 

minor assemblies ? 327ff 
Marriages 

See: Weddings. 

Matthew 18 

And discipline, 301ff. 

Ministers 

By whom elected? 23f.; ordination of and Classis, 26f.; in 

need of a change, 34; as agents and collectors, etc., 39; 

must be called for a specific field, 41f . ; missionary to be called 

by a particular Church, 41f.; admitting according to Art. 8 

Ch.O. 46f.; serving for a trial period, 50; desiring to accept a 

call must state reasons to Consistory, 50; transference of regular 

Ministers impossible, 56; stranded , 72; their specific duties, 

74f.; and catechism instruction, 75; and ! pastoral work, 

75f. ; task as Elders, 76f.; their equality, 79f.; task in gen- 
eral, 229; suspension of , 326f.; deposition of , 327. 

Ministry 

Specific appointment to the Biblical, 19; internal and external 

call to the , 19f.; calling to the through the Church, 20; 

election to the by the three offices, 23; training for the 

necessary, 44f., 46f.; need of training denied by whom? 44; the 

and exceptional gifts, 45; admission of Churchless preachers 

and leaders of sectarian groups to the , 47ff.; dismissal from 

the , 55f.; for life, 57f.; withdrawal from the ., 58f.; resign- 
ing from the , 59f. 

Minutes 

What should be recorded? 155; why are kept, 155; significance 

of name, 155f. 

Missions 

referred to in Art. 51 Ch.O., 217f.; Art. 51 Ch.O., and the 

calling of missionaries, 218. 

Monks 

Their standing in the Church of Rome, 48 ; their Baptisms not 
acknowledged, 48. 

Mutual Censure 

at Classes and Synods, 191f.; according to Art. 43 Ch.O., 

191f.; according to Art. 81 Ch.O., 332f. (Also see: Censura 

Morum). 

Names 

Selecting of and Baptism, 248; naming after angels, movie 

stars, etc., 248f. 

Ordination 

Its significance, 31f.; why required for Ministers, 76; unordained 
strangers and their “preaching” in our Churches, 76. 

Organization of New Churches 

Term used in Art. 38 Ch.O., 170f.; not to take place against the 
advice of Classis, 171; how many members needed for, 172; mini- 
mum number of Consistory members, 172; mode of procedure. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


359 


Organ Playing 

Organ playing in services, 286; position which organists hold, 17f. 
Offices, The 

Significance of the term, 14; ordained of God, 19f.; their in- 

dispensable character, 14f.; originated in Christ, 16; relation of 
to man’s fall, 16; relation of to Christ’s three-fold of- 
fice, 16; why Art. 4 Ch.O. mentions four , 17; do not exist 

apart from particular Church, 41f.; guardians over the Lord’s 
Table, 250. (Also see: Office-bearers, Ministers, Elders, Deacons.) 
Particular Synods 

Origin of , 204f.; character of , 205; delegation to , 205; 

frequency of , 206; inter-synodical contacts, 207f. (Also see: 

Synods, Major Assemblies). 

Pastoral Work 

and Elders, 108f.; whose task primarily? 110. 

Pew Rental 

Appraised, 54f. ; family pews, 55. 

Poor, Care for the 
See: Deacons. 

Preachers 

Self-appointed itinerant , 18, 21, 41; why Elders and Deacons 

may not preach, 20; why unordained professors of theology may 
not preach, 20f. 

Preaching 

Unauthorized to be disciplined, 21; Word and Sacraments not 

to be administered without consent of assemblies 7 If.; no in 

any particular Church without consent of its Consistory, 72; 

in Churches of other denominations, 73; by Ministers of other 

denominations, 74; need of Reformed urgent, 176; doctrinal 

needed, 277. 

Prayer 

Prayer and the calling of a Minister, 22f.; and our assemblies, 

147f.; free prayers and liturgical prayers, 148; pre-service 
prayers by Consistories, 148f.; Evening Prayers in Reformed 

Churches, 266; Days of Prayer, 271f.; and prayer meeting 

methods, 275. 

Profession of Faith 

Why instituted, 250f.; why require profession of the Reformed 
faith? 250f., 256; conditions for making , 250f.; great care re- 

quired, 252; specific matters to be inquired after by decision of 

Synod, 253; and Lodges, 253; and worldly amusements 

253f.; before Consistory is preliminary, 254; is making 

the same as joining a Church? 254f.; before the full Con- 

sistory or before a committee? 255; when public profession should 
take place by those that come from non-affiliated Churches, 258; 
duty regarding those who fail to make , 295. 

Professors of Theology 

Hold no separate office, 17, 83; unordained not to preach, 20f.; 

ordained to be preferred, 20f.; their task, 82; how they are to in- 
dicate sound doctrine, 84; how to be appointed, 84f. 

Protests 

See: Appeal. 


360 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


Psalms and Hymns 

Which to be used in the Churches, 280f.; history of Art. 69 

Ch.O., 280f.; Psalms and their versification, 281f . ; books formerly 
used by Chr. Ref. Churches, 282; hymn singing evaluated, 282f.; 
Psalm singing required; hymn singing permitted, 284; choir sing- 
ing and instrumental music, 284f.; song services, 285; congrega- 
tional singing to be improved, 285. 

Questions according to Art. 41. 

Origin and purpose of , 186ff. 

Readers 

Their work, 78; who may be appointed to read? 78; who selects 
sermons to be read? 78; may not alter sermons, 78. 

Reconciliation 

Which cases demand with the Church? 309; conditions for 

, 310; before Consistory only? 310; of those once excom- 
municated, 321ff.; and announcement to the Church, 322; how 

and where is one excommunicated admitted who moved to another 
Church? 322f. 

Records, Membership 

Recording of baptisms, 246f.; why records are to be kept, 246f.; 
what should be recorded? 247f., 249. 

Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. 

Origin of , VII; originally State Churches, 278. 

Reformed Churches, Other 

Acknowledging Reformed Churches not Christian Reformed, 343f.; 
what are non-essentials in Art. 85 Ch.O.? 344; hindrances to full 

acknowledgment of , 345. 

Removing 

Members who move to other places, 294. 

Resigning as Church Member 

Proper attitude toward one , 294; and Synod of 1918, 294, 

315f.; readmission of those who resigned, 321f. 

Resigning from the Ministry 

A censurable sin, 59f.; acceptional cases, 60. 

Retirement from Office 

Definite retirement, its pro and con, 125f.; when not required, 
125; early renomination desirable? 127. 

Roman Catholicism 

Not a false religion, but an erroneous system, 84; how Church 
properties were disposed of by Reformation movement, 86, 119f.; 

and its offices, 100f., 103; and temporal authority, 135; 

and its faulty conception of the Church, 138; and the con- 
science, 146; and baptismal sponsors, 239; and the mass, 

264; and funerals, 268f.; and discipline, 293, 294; .. and 

inequality of the Churches, 342. 

Rules 

Multiplicity of rules not desirable, 37, 158. 

Rules for Elections 

Demanded by the Church Order, 25; their necessity, 25; model set 

of , 104f. 

Sabbath 

The Reformed position regarding the , 275f. ; . and the 

Synod of Dort, 276. 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


361 


Sacraments 

The supervision of necessary, 15; purpose of Sacramental 

Forms, 241. 

Salaries 

Minimum salaries, 28; why salaries? 53; what is proper support? 

53f. ; basic salaries, 54; uniform salaries, 54; bazaars, etc., 54; 

and Ministers of means, 55. 

Schools 

See: Christian Schools. 

Sects 

False religion indicated, 84. 

Secular vocation 

Meaning of term, 58; withdrawal from the ministry a serious 
matter, 58; withdrawal may be permissible, 58; when entering 
upon a secular vocation is not permissible, 59. 

Sermons 

Topical sermons condemned, 76; Catechism sermons and the cele- 
bration of the Lord’s Supper, 265. 

Seventh Commandment 

When sin against the should be confessed before the Con- 
sistory, 306; sins against the and synodical rulings regarding 

confessions, 311. 

Sick visitors 

As helpers of office-bearers, 17f . ; sick visiting and the ministry, 
75. 

Special Days 

Which do we observe? 273; and the Reformers, 273; why 

our Churches observe 273f.; Good Friday observances, 274f.; 

Watch Hour and Sunrise Services, 275. 

Students for the Ministry 

Why Art. 19 Ch.O. provides for financial support of , 85f.; 

and “over-supply,” 87; how secure good students? 87f. ; who 
should be aided? 88f.; how students were at first trained, 89f. 

Student Funds 

E.P.B. Funds, 86; selections of Students Fund beneficiaries, 87f . ; 
and repayment, 88; and refusals to repay, 89. 

Sunday 

See: Sabbath. 

Sunday Schools 

Teachers, 7; S. S. teachers appointed by whom? 78f. ; who should 

be superintendent? 79; Synod of 1918 and , 100; their proper 

place in our Church, 100. 

Supervision of Office-bearers 

Always mutual, never by Bishops, etc., 108; its need, 108; how to 
be exercised, 108; significance of Art. 81 Ch.O., 1/08. 

Suspension 

See: Discipline. 

Synod 

Significance of the name, 132; ecumenical Synods, 134; delegation 
to Synod, 189, 214; delegation by ballot, not by rotation, 189; 
how Synodical gatherings are to be opened, 206; proper procedure 
at , 206; if is prevented from meeting, 212; Synod meets 


362 


THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 


annually, 212f. ; convening of Synod, 216; procedure at Synod, 

216; regulates mission work, 217f. (Also see: Particular 

Synods, Assemblies.) 

Synodical Committees 

Nature of their work, 209f.; should have specific charges, 210; 
who should be appointed? 210; the matter of Boards, 210; task of 
Synodical Delegates, 211; authority limited, 211f.; and emer- 

gencies, 212; only discharged by Synod, 212 if one finds he cannot 
serve, 212. 

Synodical Delegates 

Reason for their presence at examination, 29; only have ad- 

visory votes, 29. 

Tenure of Office 

How long should Elders and Deacons serve? 123f.; and the 

Presbyterians, 123; why proportionate retirement? 125; definite 
retirement, pro and con, 125f. 

Theology 

Its dependency on the Bible, 83; a highly necessary science, 

83f. 

Ushers 

Helpers of office-bearers, 17f. 

Vesper Services, Daily 

When and why discontinued? 266. 

Voting 

Why women do not vote, 25; members-by-baptism do not vote, 
25; censored members do not vote, 25; who vote at major as- 
semblies? 150f. 


PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
































































































































































































































































































































































s 



































































































































































































































■ 









- 


































































































- 





























